Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT PAUL'S CHURCHYARD BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Class Sizes

Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of primary school children being taught in classes of over 30 in the current academic year. [35990]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): Figures for the current academic year are not available.

Mrs. Jackson: Figures for the current academic year are available in my constituency, because I have contacted every primary school head teacher. They show that children in 96 out of 187 primary school classes—more than 50 per cent. of them—will start the school year in classes of 30 or more. Will the Secretary of State say whether she believes that there is a link between the quality of education offered and the size of a primary school class? If she agrees that there is a link, what will she do about it—

Madam Speaker: Order. We are not in debate; this is Question Time.

Mrs. Shephard: I have said often enough in this House that I accept that a very large class may be difficult for a teacher to manage. The chief inspector of schools, however, consistently reports no link between class size and attainment. He also consistently reports that what matters is the quality of teaching. That is why I greatly welcome the recent conversion of Opposition Members to supporting improved standards in schools, despite their voting record of having opposed every measure to improve standards of the past 16 years.

Mr. Alison: Does my right hon. Friend agree that overcrowded school premises can inhibit a school's

excellence as much as overcrowded classes? Will she look with special sympathy at proposals, soon to reach her, to rebuild or expand Monk Fryston Church of England primary school in my constituency? Built for 44 children, it is now crammed with 126 of them, in more temporary classrooms than original classrooms. Will she do her best to help that marvellous school move into a more expansive phase?

Mrs. Shephard: My right hon. Friend has been consistently assiduous in pressing the case for a capital allocation to Monk Fryston school, and I am grateful to him. I understand that the North Yorkshire local education authority has included an element for the school in this year's capital bid. Clearly I can give my right hon. Friend no more reassurance than to say that I will judge any such bid against our criteria to ensure that resources are fairly distributed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If it is acceptable for primary schools to have classes of more than 30, why is it not acceptable for preparatory schools—the junior equivalents of public schools—to which the rich can send their children? Why should those schools be able to have 15 in a class while numbers in the state sector are double that? Does it not show that the Government are interested only in privilege in education?

Mrs. Shephard: On the contrary, we believe in choice, and in choice for everyone. The Opposition believe in choice for their Front Benchers and a firm march back to the 1960s for everyone else.

Literacy and Numeracy

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in improving literacy and numeracy in schools. [45991]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): Raising standards of literacy and numeracy is at the heart of our school reforms. The chief inspector of schools has confirmed that our reforms are improving the quality of education.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that literacy and numeracy are still the keys to success in later life for young people? In that context, what steps does her Department propose to take further to improve standards of reading, writing and speaking English, and of adding and subtracting numbers?

Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is right. Only last week, we set out new measures for raising standards of written and spoken English in schools and the workplace across the country. Communication skills are vital for career prospects and the Government's initiatives on spoken English qualifications emanate from discussions and consultations with a wide range of people, including business, the media, unions, voluntary bodies and educators. We are delighted that Trevor McDonald has agreed to chair the steering group and we look forward to developments in this sector.

Mr. Marek: The Minister will know that class sizes in public and preparatory schools are on average half as


small as those in state schools. Will she make a connection between class sizes and achieving higher standards in numeracy and literacy?

Mrs. Gillan: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is inviting me down a route that I should not care to follow, but the House should know that Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools has confirmed that, notably, the national curriculum and testing are already helping to raise overall education standards, and we can expect a steady rise in standards as more pupils benefit from our reforms.

Nursery Education

Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a further statement about her plans for the expansion of nursery education. [35992]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I am delighted to announce that Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Westminster have confirmed their decision to take part in the first phase of the voucher scheme, beginning in April 1996. Others are considering the issue and I hope to be able to add to that list in the near future.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when he has completed his consultation exercise on quality assurance he will promote a policy of good education, good quality and good value for money?

Mr. Squire: I most certainly confirm what my hon. Friend seeks. The aim of the scheme, which will apply to every local education authority from April 1997, is to ensure the quality of education delivered to pre-fives and to extend the opportunity of nursery education to all four-year-olds who do not have it.

Mr. Don Foster: Given the recent debate about levels of crime, does the Minister agree that a proven connection exists between high-quality, early-years education and lowering juvenile crime? If he does, would it not have been better to introduce a system of proper, high-quality, early-years education for all three and four-year-olds instead of the cumbersome and bureaucratic voucher system?

Mr. Squire: I think that I can say no to most of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I am prepared to concede that one of the many elements claimed for early school education is that it may reduce subsequent delinquency.
I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Gentleman about vouchers. only vouchers will give parents choice in their child's pre-school education, including parents who may have only one opportunity. Secondly—I do not wish to outstay my welcome, Madam Speaker—any money channelled through block grants to local authorities is by no means guaranteed to be spent on the sector that he has identified.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend share my regret that Essex county council appears, as a matter of policy, to have refused even to take part in the trials that we have initiated?

Mr. Squire: I have been disappointed by the response of a number of local education authorities, all of which have been invited to take part and all of which, by

definition, will have four-year-olds whose parents will be unable to secure pre-school education for their child. They would have had a better chance of doing so if they had been in phase one, so I share my hon. Friend's dismay.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Given the Secretary of State's failure to involve a nationally representative cross-section of authorities in the pilot scheme and her further failure to set clear targets for access to nursery education for three and four-year-olds, will the Minister tell us which agency is being charged with looking after the voucher scheme?

Mr. Squire: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, he will have to wait but a short while longer for the announcement to be made.
On the central issues, the hon. Gentleman will have to recognise that some authorities are not taking part because they have been misled by him and others and have been persuaded to give first priority not to parents but to political dogma.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the chief attractions to parents of four-year-olds of the new plan to expand nursery education is that no less than £185 million of entirely new money is being added to the education budget for that? Will he confirm that there is great enthusiasm for the provision of nursery education and for the expansion of choice and diversity? Will he join me in paying tribute to the expansion of the education provision in playgroups run by the Pre-School Playgroups Association?

Mr. Squire: I willingly confirm the figure quoted by my hon. Friend and, like him, I welcome developments within the Pre-School Alliance. The large number of letters to the Department from parents who want to know why their authority is not taking part from 1996 shows that both Opposition parties are risking considerable unpopularity.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of men aged (a) 55 to 59 and (b) 60 to 65 years are in employment. [35993]

Mrs. Gillan: At spring 1995, the proportion of men aged 55 to 59 in employment was 66.3 per cent. and 40.8 per cent. for those aged 60 to 65 years.

Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister agree that the fact that one in three men in their late fifties is out of work represents a huge waste of human potential and is bad news for the economy? Is it right that so many men who are still relatively young are thrown on to a human scrapheap? Do the Government have any proposals to get Britain back to work?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman should know that all age groups have benefited from the expansion of employment opportunities under this Government and that the fastest growth has been among those over 50. Among men aged 50 to 59, 66.3 per cent. are in employment, compared with the EC average of 63 per cent. Among men aged 60 to 64, the 45 per cent. figure compares with an EC average of 31 per cent. I am continuing my campaign to assist older workers to realise their potential and to play a full part in the labour market in a way that


meets their needs and those of employers. The Government are taking action today. We are not just talking about promises of legislation way into the future which will not deal with the current problem.

Sir Sydney Chapman: As someone who this very day has crossed the threshold between the two age groups mentioned in the question, my hon. Friend will understand that I am taking an increasing interest in tackling the problems of agism. I congratulate my hon. Friend on her recent initiative. May I suggest that it is far better to tackle the problem through her friendly persuasion rather than attempting to do so by legislation?

Mrs. Gillan: I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday. He is only halfway there since we know that Madame Calment in France has achieved the great age of 120 years and 238 days. My hon. Friend has a long way to go.
During the recess I was able to make three new announcements on our campaign for older workers. First, I announced a new booklet targeted at recruitment agencies, which will be published before Christmas. Secondly—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow such long answers to questions, particularly since the hon. Lady seems to be making a statement. Questions and answers are becoming longer and we are not making the progress On which I insist. Will the hon. Lady complete her answer?

Mrs. Gillan: First, there is to be a new booklet aimed at recruitment agencies; secondly, advice will be given to recruitment advertising agencies; and thirdly, the undertaking of a comprehensive survey—

Madam Speaker: Order.

Ms Harman: Does the Minister agree that unfairness and discrimination should have no place in today's world of work? Does she further agree that it is wrong to sack someone or to reject a job application solely on the ground of age? If so, why will not she take the simple step of making age discrimination in employment unlawful?

Mrs. Gillan: I shall not take lectures from the hon. Lady on this subject. Her policies are full of rhetoric. I have referred to three measures that I announced earlier this year, which propose positive steps to counteract the problems now, rather than talking about vague promises of what may be done in future.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the kernel of her answer is the figures for other European countries? Would not the adoption of the social chapter and a national minimum wage increase the number of old people out of work in the same way as it would increase youth unemployment?

Mrs. Gillan: Yes.

Nursery Education

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many three and four-year-olds started in nursery schools this September. [35994]

Mr. Robin Squire: Information about the number of three and four-year-olds in school is collected centrally in January. Provisional figures show that in January 1995, 52,600 three and four-year-olds were in maintained nursery schools.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that many parents of three and four-year-olds would like their children to be in nursery school, but are denied places? Did not even Lady Thatcher, back in 1972, commit the Conservative party to providing nursery education for all three and four-year-olds? Is not it a tragedy that, 23 years later, that has not been achieved? The Government are producing a smokescreen of vouchers to cover up the fact that they are not prepared to carry out even Lady Thatcher's commitment.

Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman echoes others on the Opposition Benches in not being keen on parental choice, but that is no surprise to us. The answer to the substance of his question is: let us get universal provision for four-year-olds up and running properly, after which we can consider other aspects. The hon. Gentleman and his party are very free with spending commitments from time to time. The Government have made a firm commitment on four-year-olds and we will stick by it.

Sir Jim Spicer: Is my hon. Friend aware that within one day of the announcement of the voucher scheme, Liberal-controlled Dorset county council arbitrarily said that it wanted nothing to do with it? Since then it has been havering in its decision. Will he undertake to give the council as long as possible to decide one way or the other? If it does not decide to join the pilot scheme, when my hon. Friend comes to Dorset on 27 October will he lay the blame fairly and squarely on the council for not consulting governors and head teachers?

Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend and the House know, because of the current legislative position the Government were required to ask for volunteers. Provided that my hon. Friend races from the Chamber at the appropriate time, contacts his local authority and makes it clear that it must act quickly, it could still be brought into phase one. It will, like all other authorities, be brought into phase two, but that will be too late for the parents of four-year-olds in the coming year.

Teachers' Pensions Agency

Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Teachers' Pensions Agency. [35995]

Mr. Robin Squire: We invited expressions of interest in June for a contract to administer the teachers' superannuation scheme. We are now considering whether to invite certain companies to tender for a contract. We expect to inform the House of our conclusions shortly.

Mr. Milburn: Does the Minister accept that if privatisation of the agency's functions goes ahead, it will not only threaten one of Darlington's key employers but will undermine the impartial pensions service currently received by more than 1 million teachers in this country? Will he explain to the House why, despite meeting all the targets set for them by Ministers, hard-working staff at the agency were denied the right to bid against private competitors to run the service? What assurances can he


now give both the staff at the agency and those directly employed by his Department in Darlington about their future job prospects?

Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, considerable discussions have been held, including those that I had with staff, and I fully understand that uncertainty is alarming some members of staff. In fairness, as I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises, whether or not we finally decide that the scheme could be contractorised, there will still be—even in the public sector if it remains in the public sector—a need to find further efficiency savings.
I see no reason why the management of the scheme—of course, there is no fund as such—should in any way jeopardise pensions or in any way lead to a lower standard of service. Indeed, one of the requirements that we would make if we proceeded would be that service should be at least as good as, if not better than, at present.

Mr. Devlin: I applaud the Minister for seeking savings on behalf of the taxpayer, but I remind him that the superannuation scheme is highly complex. It would be prudent if we were at least to allow the work force an opportunity to meet targets and to provide the service in competition with the private sector.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend's concerns—no doubt some of his constituents work at the agency—are well noted. As I made clear in my main answer, although at this stage I cannot announce whether we shall move out to the private sector, it should be stressed for the benefit of the House and for those who are expressing concern that the Darlington office has considerable attractions. We are advised that existing staff would transfer to any future contractor under legislation, and there would self-evidently be an advantage of continuity if another private sector body were brought in to administer the scheme from the same site.

Industrial Links

Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the Government are doing to encourage links between schools and industry. [35996]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The Government continue to promote a wide range of activities, both departmentally and with other organisations, aimed at developing closer links between schools and industry.

Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the support that British Aerospace gives schools in my part of Lancashire sets an example that should be followed by other firms? Will she do all that she can to encourage other firms to do precisely that?

Mrs. Shephard: I am aware that British Aerospace, in backing the setting up of technology colleges, is giving a great deal of support to this area of educational work. Although I am absolutely delighted by British Aerospace's commitment, 200 industrial sponsors are backing 101 technology colleges and six language colleges which have been approved. Their support amounts to £11 million of sponsorship.

Mrs. Clwyd: Has the Minister looked at the recent health and safety statistics on accidents at work, which

show an increase in accidents in manufacturing industry among school-age children? When will the Government act to enforce the law to end the scandal of 1.5 million school-age children working illegally in Britain?

Mrs. Shephard: The Government cannot condone any kind of illegal practices in employment. If the hon. Lady would like to send me details, they will be looked at.

Sir Donald Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that teachers benefit just as much as pupils from links with industry?

Mrs. Shephard: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. More than 160,000 teachers have taken industry placements since 1989.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Given that both schools and colleges are involved in providing academic and vocational training, does the Minister agree that we need a new partnership—not competition—between schools, colleges of further education, training and enterprise councils and industry so that they can provide the best quality of training for 16 to 18-year-olds in a highly competitive job environment? If extra resources are necessary to deliver that partnership, will she make them available?

Mrs. Shephard: I shall not make any promises today on extra public expenditure, but the hon. Gentleman is right. There should be a productive partnership between training and enterprise councils, colleges and schools in given areas. Occasionally that spills over into extremely fierce competition, which usually results in benefits for the young people involved, but a careful eye must be kept on it.

Class Sizes

Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research her Department has undertaken on the effect of class size on education standards. [35998]

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We continue to monitor research on Ofsted evidence in this area.

Mr. Khabra: The Minister has given a very unsatisfactory reply. May I draw her attention to the comments of Duncan Graham, the former chairman and chief executive of the National Curriculum Council, who is reported in the press as saying that
the national curriculum could not be delivered properly in classes of more than 35 and children in groups of 40 and over were 'getting a raw deal"?
We are already nearly 10,000 teachers short of the number required to maintain class sizes. Will the Minister deal with these fundamental questions? I should like a positive response.

Mrs. Shephard: Classes are not too large to deliver the national curriculum effectively. That is not only my view but that of the chief inspector. Clearly, the national curriculum is now slimmer than it was when Mr. Graham was chairman of the National Curriculum Council. I repeat that the quality of teaching depends on the quality of teachers, not class size.

Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's education reforms have done much to


improve the quality and standard of state education? Does she agree, however, that an increase in class sizes may jeopardise those reforms? May I therefore ask her to redouble her efforts to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to fund in full the next teachers' pay award?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is an inspiration and support, as always. He will know that at this time of year it is normal for members of the Cabinet to be engaged in vigorous debate.

Mr. Blunkett: It sounds as though we have another convert on our hands.
Does the Secretary of State agree that when the Deputy Prime Minister said last week that it was necessary to allow 60,000 children to "escape", as he put it, from the inadequacy of inner-city education, he was making the biggest indictment possible of 16 years of Conservative government? If £220 million is available, should not it go to lowering class sizes for 1.5 million children in infant schools or 7 million children in our state system, not merely to allowing 60,000 children to escape Tory incompetence?

Mrs. Shephard: It really is time that Labour Members stopped perpetuating the fiction that they are remotely interested in raising standards in our schools. They have consistently opposed every standard-raising measure that has gone through the House. The opposition of Labour Members to choice, diversity of provision and excellence is well known and well documented; so is their principal motivation of class envy. All those factors are well illustrated in their desire to end the assisted places scheme, which provides real opportunities for children from poorer families. Sadly, the Labour party is the enemy of aspiration.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite all the huffing and puffing by the Labour party, pupil-teacher ratios have fallen substantially—from 19:1 to 18:1—since it was in office, that over the same period the number of support staff in our schools has vastly increased, and that how classes are organised within that ratio is entirely a matter for the head teacher?

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right, as always. Class size statistics tell us nothing about how teachers now work and how pupils learn.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, irrespective of class sizes, the class teacher's ability to identify through early assessment the special needs of individual children, and the provision of individual help, will play a major part in raising standards?

Mrs. Shephard: Indeed, assessment and testing at all stages throughout a pupil's career are extremely important, and our nursery initiative will enable us to examine carefully what children can achieve when they reach primary school.

Dr. Spink: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Education Select Committee visited Japan it found that in some subjects standards were higher than in this country, yet that class sizes were invariably much higher than in this country? Does she not conclude from that evidence that it is the quality of teaching and the involvement of

parents that dictates achievement and outcome, and that those are the areas that we should address most aggressively?

Mrs. Shephard: Yes, I am happy that the Select Committee's visit to Japan confirmed my conviction that it is the quality of teaching that matters.

School Budgets

Mr. Tipping: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the level of school budgets in 1996–97. [35999]

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Funding for schools in 1996–97 is currently under consideration in the public expenditure survey. As part of that process, my right hon. Friend has received the views of the local authority associations and other interested parties.

Mr. Tipping: Will the Minister listen carefully, especially to the views of parents? Does he understand their concerns and will he respond positively to them? Does he realise that parents in, say, Nottinghamshire are alarmed that there are 350 fewer teachers in schools this term than last term, and that there are real worries that there will be 2,300 fewer teachers in the east midlands next year? Should we not invest in education and the future rather than cutting expenditure?

Mr. Forth: I am not surprised that parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have expressed alarm at their county council's conduct of local education matters. I should have thought that they would want to examine carefully his county's disposition of surplus school places, for example, as well as the priority that it has or has not given to education, and the extent of its non-education expenditure. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is urging parents to ask their county councillors searching questions about how far the council reflects those parents' needs.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that size is not everything, and that what is done with an education budget can be just as important? Is he aware that in Japan less than 4 per cent. of public expenditure goes to education, compared with more than 5 per cent. in this country, so there is no necessary link between how much is spent on education and what is achieved with the money?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is right; none of us is sizeist. The point is how effectively the money is used. There is no proven demonstrable correlation between the amount spent per pupil anywhere in the country and the educational outcomes achieved. My hon. Friend has done well to undermine and expose the glib assertion that there is necessarily a causal connection between the amount spent and educational outcomes.

Mr. MacShane: In that case, will the Minister promise the parents of Rotherham, who have seen 104 teachers sacked because of last year's education round, that spending money on education does not matter? He would not dare to come to my constituency and tell teachers and


parents that class sizes, educational attainment and sacking teachers does not count. The only teacher whom they want sacked is the ex-teacher sitting beside him.

Mr. Forth: I have been to many constituencies up and down the country and said exactly that to many people, and I will continue to do so whenever I have the opportunity. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Forth: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to his colleague, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). Parents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency should be asking those questions of those responsible for spending the money in the area. If it has been necessary—if regrettable—to sack teachers, the hon. Gentleman's questions should be put to the local education authority that has made the decisions. The authority must be accountable to parents for the expenditure in its area.

Mr. Dover: Is the Minister aware that the Government's announcement last year of a 1 per cent. increase in education spend was converted by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council into a reduction of 5.5 per cent? Is it not the worst-possible trouble-stirring for Labour to say to schools that there will be a further cut of 8 per cent. in 1996–97 before the Budget at the end of November and before the rate support grant settlement?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend makes the point extremely well. LEAs must be accountable for their decisions in their localities. If the authorities are prepared to play politics in the classroom and to make cheap political points by sacking teachers or by misleading parents and electors, I am sure that my hon. Friend and all my colleagues will continue to expose such practices.

Educational Attainment

Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effect of educational attainment on levels of pay received later in life. [36000]

Mr. Forth: High levels of educational achievement are vital to promote economic growth and personal development. The evidence is that earnings are higher for the better qualified both on qualification and throughout life.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that most of those who get the chance of going to university, and therefore have the chance to earn more in later life, will pay back for their education by higher taxation? Will the Government therefore scrap the discredited and despised student loans?

Mr. Forth: I am delighted that someone has emerged from the undergrowth on the Opposition Benches to make a plea for higher taxation. If there were more honesty from the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, we would get further in the political debate. The student loans scheme is working extraordinarily well. It has been well taken up and has been welcomed by students, more and more of whom are entering and leaving higher education every year.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is it not the case that students currently going into higher education—the ratio is one in

three today, compared with one in eight under Labour—are benefiting from the education funds that have been recycled through the repayment of the grants of the generation who went before? Are not those very students, who under Labour would not have entered higher education, now benefiting?

Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. The evidence shows that a large number of young people are now enjoying the benefits of higher education, while many more are enjoying excellent education post-16 in our further education colleges and sixth forms. Even more young people are taking part in modern apprenticeships and the many other training and educational opportunities that the Government are giving them. We will take no lectures from Opposition Members on the quality and breadth of what is being provided to young people and to those in learning throughout their lives in our various institutions of learning.

Ms Short: Does the Minister appreciate that the Government's policy of encouraging low pay in Britain is leading to a growth in the number of jobs requiring few skills or educational qualifications? Does he agree that Britain is worryingly backward when compared with our competitor countries in the skills level of the work force and in the percentage of young people in higher education? Is not the Government's policy of encouraging low pay and low skills blighting the life opportunities of British workers and damaging the economic position and the future of the British economy?

Mr. Forth: I recognise nothing in what the hon. Lady has said. We do not support the Opposition's policy of no pay. The figures prove that countries which have a statutory minimum wage—particularly some of our partners on the European mainland—have much higher overall unemployment, and unemployment of young people in particular, than this country. The lesson is quite clear; if one imposes a minimum pay rate on the labour market, a lot of people will be thrown out of work and will end up with no pay, not low pay.

Training

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next plans to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss training. [36001]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met John Monks on 30 August, and I will be meeting him on 8 November 1995.

Mr. Rooney: Is the Minister aware that today one in five vacancies cannot be filled because of skills shortages? Will he therefore accept the advice of both the Confederation of British Industry and the Engineering Employers Federation that the voluntary levy system has failed and that he needs to get together with all partners in industry to improve training levels?

Mr. Paice: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his ideas from. Both the CBI and the engineering employers are whole-heartedly against the reintroduction of a levy. Only the Labour party persists in believing that it knows better than business how to invest in training. The voluntary approach that the Government have


followed has delivered greater volumes of expenditure on training, much better focused training and a much better qualified work force than there ever was under the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36019]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Coombs: Even in the light of the recent record fall in reported crime, is my right hon. Friend aware of the great welcome that there will be throughout the country for the additional 5,000 police officers approved last week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of what the Lord Chief Justice might say, long prison sentences which become short as a result of automatic remission undermine people's sense of justice and do not act as a sufficient deterrent to the criminal?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's strategy to fight crime. The threat of a long prison sentence deters criminals from committing crime. That is not just my view and that of the Home Secretary. That is the view of the police as well. I welcome the fall in crime over the past two and a half years, but we wish to see it fall a good deal further. That is what lay behind our announcements last week.

Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister will know that the Home Secretary has denied any involvement in the operational matters of the Prison Service, including the Parkhurst breakout. Can he therefore confirm the following facts: that, so far from this being true, the Home Secretary personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst prison should be suspended immediately; that when Mr. Lewis objected as it was an operational matter, the Home Secretary threatened to instruct him to do it; that when Mr. Lewis further objected, the Home Secretary told the operational director of the Prison Service by fax that he would announce it in the House of Commons that day and duly did announce it in his statement to the House? Is that true or is it false?

The Prime Minister: The Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for the actions of the Home Office and for the actions of the governor. He appointed Mr. Lewis to run the Prison Service. The criticisms over the past few days by the Learmont report have been directed at the director of prisons and not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I believe that the Home Secretary has acted entirely properly throughout this affair.

Mr. Blair: I am afraid that the Prime Minister has not answered the factual question. The Home Secretary is sitting a couple of places along. The Prime Minister can ask him whether it is true now. I put certain specific facts

in relation to the pressure on Mr. Lewis in respect of the removal of the governor of Parkhurst. Are those facts true or are they false?

The Prime Minister: I have made it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman that I have no doubt that whatever action my right hon. and learned Friend took was entirely proper and within his remit as Home Secretary answerable to this House.

Mr. Blair: If the facts are true, it was not within his remit as it was an operational matter. That is precisely the issue. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that Mr. Lewis has also said this morning that the Home Secretary personally interfered in prison visits, in searches and in disciplinary awards and that there has been greater political interference than at any point in time in the service history? Is it not the case that we do not have a Government governing the country? We have a group of Ministers who will play games with these issues, who take credit when things are going right and refuse to take credit when things are going wrong. That is not a responsible Government for Britain.

The Prime Minister: We noticed the careful lead-up to the pre-prepared soundbite, as we do each Tuesday and Thursday. My right hon. and learned Friend discharges properly his responsibilities to this House and this country. Were he not to do so, the Leader of the Opposition would say, "Why does the Home Secretary not take an interest in matters that are relevant to the good conduct of the prison service?" But he is not responsible for the day-to-day management of the Prison Service. He is responsible to this House and answerable to this House, and he must take actions in the interests of the Prison Service. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend has done, and he has my full support in having done it.

Mr. Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the proposal that British Telecom should be able to wire up schools to the super-highway in return for carrying television signals? Is he aware that that would run contrary to the well-settled framework for those matters, and would be to the considerable advantage of British Telecom and the considerable disadvantage of the cable companies which have invested a great deal in the procedure so far?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am aware of that. Many schools are already being cabled up for precisely those advantages. If the Opposition, who occasionally like to claim credit for the information super-highway, were to examine what was happening—if they took their heads out of the sand and put them in the holes in the road—they would see that it was already being built.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36020]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Campbell: Which has done more damage to the Government: the irresponsibility of the Defence Secretary last week or the Home Secretary's unwillingness to accept responsibility this week?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary was expressing the fears of many people, not


just in the United Kingdom but throughout Europe, about the more ambitious federalist plans for the future of the European Union. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that his party's policy is that the British armed forces should be commanded by qualified majority vote elsewhere, let him say so.

Mr. Dunn: Conservatives welcome the decision to expand the assisted places scheme. Will my right hon. Friend compare our policies of maximising parental choice with those of the Opposition, which would destroy the city technology colleges, grammar schools, the assisted places scheme and grant-maintained schools in the interests of equality, justice and social engineering?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We seek excellence in education and choice for all parents in the interests of their children. I very much regret that the Opposition—except perhaps the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)—oppose the assisted places scheme.

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36021]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Prime Minister share the fear that has been expressed that the privatisation of Her Majesty's Stationery Office later this afternoon will lead to commercial motives overriding the public interest in making official information more freely available to the general public, as it is in other countries? Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that it is clearly in a privatised HMSO's interest to resist free electronic access to Government publications protected by Government copyright? How does that square with the Government's commitment to a freedom of information policy and to extending the information technology revolution to the rest of the country?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is answering a question later on this afternoon. I do not wish comment in detail on the substance of his question but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will ensure that the needs of Parliament and other customers are satisfied for openness, for improved access to information technology, for value for money, for flexibility and for security of supply. The record of privatisation over recent years is that it has improved, not damaged, service.

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend will have heard this morning of another terrorist bombing in Paris. Will he use this opportunity today to reaffirm his Government's policy on border controls and to make sure that they are never loosened so that terrorists may not get easy access to this country?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to confirm the Government's policy on border controls. We need those border controls. We intend to keep them, and they are not negotiable.

Mr. Michael: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36022]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Michael: Can we now hear it straight from the Prime Minister: just how bad do things have to get at the Home Office to require a ministerial resignation?

The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Learmont report, and after he has done so he will be better informed and he will know that the criticisms were directed not at my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary but at the Prison Service. My right hon. and learned Friend acted properly in those circumstances.

Mr. Marlow: Given that a report has been issued today by the Labour party—the blueprint for the dismemberment of the United Kingdom—could my right hon. Friend tell the House how it could be possible if there were a Parliament in Scotland, that a party with a majority in the United Kingdom but not in the majority in England could govern England?

The Prime Minister: I have not yet had the opportunity to consider the document that has been published today but I am certainly aware that one was scheduled to be published today and I am aware of the policies of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party on the subject of devolution in Scotland. There is no doubt whatsoever that those policies, if carried out as at present intended, would have a very damaging effect on the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Although the leader of the Labour party shouts something at me across the Dispatch Box, it was he who referred to the tartan tax—an extra £6 a week, which he seems to think is an accountancy detail.

Ms Quin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36023]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Ms Quin: Given the widespread public concern expressed over the summer, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity, particularly before the Commonwealth conference next month, of condemning the French nuclear tests in the south Pacific?

The Prime Minister: No, I will not.

Mr. Michael Brown: The Prime Minister spoke with the Home Secretary last week in the Winter Gardens at Blackpool where the subject of closed circuit televisions to deal with law and order was raised. Is he aware that in Cleethorpes we have a Winter Gardens, but we do not yet have closed circuit television. The Minister of State was unable to accede to my request earlier this year. Can my right hon. Friend assure me and the people of Cleethorpes that this time round Cleethorpes will be considered for closed circuit television in the high street and on the sea front where we have a problem with the youths and yobs who cause such distress to our retired people in Cleethorpes?

The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be provision for a further 10,000 such closed circuit television cameras over the next three years and I


have no doubt, as we consider where those should be, that my hon. Friend may from time to time mention the particular concerns of Cleethorpes.

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 October. [36024]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Prime Minister aware that there have been angry reactions throughout the country to reports that overseas aid is to be cut by 12 per cent. over two years? Does he not care that such cuts would have a catastrophic effect on some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world? Is he aware that 79 per cent. of the British people find such cuts repugnant when they will be used for tax cuts in the run-up to the general election?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady knows, at something more than £2.2 billion, we have the fifth largest overseas aid programme in the world. It is not only one of the largest aid programmes in the world but, as the hon. Lady herself has acknowledged in the past, one of the

best. I assure the hon. Lady that, after my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget, we shall continue to have a highly effective aid programme.

Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concept of fundholding is right at the core of the success of our reforms in the health service? Has he noticed that doctors who are fundholders have, in the past two days, roundly attacked Labour's proposals for the sham that they are and have said that they will destroy the very success that we have created? Will my right hon. Friend now take this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to fundholding status and to point out the disastrous concept of Labour policy?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The report by the GPs sets out what we have said consistently about fundholding—that our reforms are benefiting patients and delivering to them the service that they deserve. If the Labour party seriously intended to turn the clock back and to abolish fundholding, it would create chaos and confusion, and would damage the service for patients. The fact of the matter is that Labour is more concerned about political gestures than about care for the patient, and that has always been the case.

Rural White Paper

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I am pleased to present to the House today the Government's White Paper "Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside". This has been produced jointly by my own Department and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but with the close co-operation and participation of all Government Departments and countryside agencies. Scotland and Wales will produce their own papers.
When we started on this venture, we undertook to consider together the economic, social and environmental aspects of country life, building on the principles set out in the sustainable development strategy. This was an ambitious task, but the goal of sustainable development requires that we look at such subjects in the round. This White Paper does just that.
The White Paper sets out the role of Government alongside that of the many others who share influence over the future of rural life. It strikes a proper balance between the many competing pressures on our rural life and landscape. It embodies our determination not to allow the countryside to be turned into a museum piece. It sets out how the countryside can continue its economic success and remain a living, working place. It marks a new phase in environmental protection. It shows our determination to protect and enhance the countryside for its own sake. It emphasises the diversity within our rural areas, and demonstrates our commitment to real subsidiarity.
Sustainable development is about the right way in which to achieve economic development, not about stopping it. All our aspirations for rural areas depend on a secure and diverse economic base. The Government's root economic policies—more competition, less regulation and sensible planning—have brought huge benefits to the rural economy, as elsewhere. Rural enterprise is flourishing. The rate of growth of small business has far exceeded the national average. Unemployment is lower. New jobs are rapidly replacing the old, as advances in communications and in transport transform our notion of what is remote.
However, success must not lead to complacency. We need further diversification, and we need to see the benefits of this reach to all parts of the countryside—as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will no doubt know from his rural experience.
The White Paper therefore contains a number of measures to strengthen the competitiveness of rural businesses and to promote economic diversification in ways which respect the environment. Perhaps most notably, we shall revise planning policy guidance note 7—the main rural planning guidance note—to encourage greater re-use of rural buildings for business rather than residential purposes; we shall consult on the introduction of a new rural business use class within the planning system, in order further to encourage appropriate rural enterprise; and we will continue our drive against unnecessary regulation and over-zealous enforcement of those regulations which are necessary.
At the same time, we should defend the green belt, restrain out-of-town shopping developments and, by the regeneration of our inner cities, ensure that as much new building as possible takes place in our towns.
We shall also continue to safeguard a viable and competitive agriculture. Although no longer the predominant rural employer, farming remains a dynamic and essential industry. It supports a range of ancillary supply industries and provides raw materials for food processing. Agriculture remains the most important influence on the appearance of most of our countryside. Its continued viability will remain crucial for the achievement of many conservation objectives.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear the Government's view that producers and consumers alike would benefit from further, fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy in the direction of freer markets. The White Paper reaffirms that belief, and with it the Government's commitment to ensure that care for the environment is central to the future development of the CAP.
The White Paper also places great emphasis on diversity. Conservative Members will welcome the fact that we set out to respect and enhance that diversity, not to stamp upon it. Rural England is not one homogeneous entity, but a glorious mixture. A wide range of local circumstances create a wide range of local needs. These needs are best known, and therefore best dealt with, by the people most directly concerned.
Accordingly, the Government propose to test new ways of increasing local influence over local issues and enhancing the role of parish councils, particularly in crime prevention, community transport and the management of local footpaths.
The White Paper contains a number of additional measures and commitments to help meet the need for high-quality rural services, and to improve their accessibility to those who most need them. Quality and accessibility do not always rest easily together, yet the Government are determined to improve both. To this end, we shall launch a rural charter initiative to help ensure that service providers meet the needs of their rural as well as their urban customers.
Without doubt, there is great potential in the application of information technology. This has implications right across the board—for education, for medicine, for the viability of local post offices, for work patterns and for transport needs. Use of such technology is already spreading fast, a process which has been greatly assisted by our resolute determination to introduce greater competition into the communication markets.
I should like to comment particularly on two crucial aspects of community life—the village store and local housing. There is no true substitute for local shops, which so often form the hub of a small community. While ultimately it is only customers who can guarantee their future, the general store and post office do have a particular importance in village life, and I am sure that the House will agree that it is right both to recognise that status and to seek to bolster it wherever practicable.
I am therefore announcing today that we intend further to safeguard the position of the traditional village store, and that we shall shortly consult on a new business rate relief scheme specifically targeted to benefit these stores. This last measure may require legislation, but in the


meantime we shall encourage local authorities to use the discretion they already have in the area to help the retention of village stores.
Similarly, the need for affordable housing is particularly keenly felt in rural areas, and we therefore wish to see more land brought forward for rented housing for local people. Our consultations identified four main constraints on this, and the White Paper addresses every one of these constraints.
First, the Government will reinforce their exceptions policy, so that affordable housing can be built outside the normal village envelope. Secondly, the Rural Development Commission will extend its support for so-called rural housing enablers, helping to guide interested landowners through the necessary agreements with housing associations and others.
Thirdly, we shall give the Housing Corporation greater flexibility to enhance its grant rates where that is necessary for rural schemes. I can give an assurance today that, in rural areas, developments built for local low-cost rented accommodation now will remain available for local low-cost rented accommodation in the future.
The White Paper emphasises the inter-relationship between economic development and environmental protection. It has much to say about safeguarding the countryside's natural resources—its water, its soil, its minerals, its habitats and wildlife, its woodland. In the case of forestry, it sets out a new target for doubling woodland cover over the next half century.
The White Paper marks a transition between two great phases of conservation policy making. The Government intend in future to complement the present system of area designations with new ways of enriching the quality of the wider countryside. We are not content merely to protect the wildlife that we already have; we aim to reverse that decline through the biodiversity action plan that is being advanced in parallel with this rural White Paper.
We shall give high priority to providing extra funding for the countryside stewardship scheme. Countryside stewardship will become the main axis of our practical conservation policy, and will be expanded to target new habitats and landscape features.
It is not for us to impose a national blueprint upon rural life, or to attempt a proliferation of local blueprints. Rather, it is our task to set a broad policy framework that maximises the opportunity for local initiative and responsibility, while ensuring that legitimate national objectives can be met and that the genuine public interest is properly protected.
In addition, the Government take seriously the task of ensuring that the rural voice is not drowned out by the metropolitan megaphone, and that rural tradition and local opinion are not stifled by sophisticated national pressure groups. To that end, we shall expand the remit of the Cabinet Committee on the Environment so that its task will he continually to consider the rural dimension of policy-making right across Whitehall. We intend to follow up the White Paper's proposals swiftly, and will report on progress next year.
The rural White Paper is a landmark statement on rural policy. I commend it to the House.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Does the Secretary of State remember telling his party conference

last week that this rural White Paper would start with humility? So it should, for the Government have failed our rural communities.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the Conservatives, unemployment and crime have increased faster in our rural areas than elsewhere? Rural homelessness has more than doubled, and low pay is more prevalent than in our towns. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that village schools have closed, and that other essential local services have been lost—that our market towns and local shops have borne the brunt of the Government's past planning mistakes over out-of-town shopping centres?
As for the White Paper itself, let me deal first with housing. I welcome the Secretary of State's concession on exemptions to the right to buy for housing associations, and note what he just said about Housing Corporation grants; but how does he hope to ensure the building of an adequate number of much-needed homes for rent—particularly if he still refuses to allow local authorities to spend the millions of pounds raised from council house sales?
Then there is agriculture. I welcome the restatement of the plan to expand the countryside stewardship scheme; but only this year the Government scrapped the farm conservation grant schemes that helped farmers to combat pollution and to implement environmental improvement plans. How, then, can the Secretary of State assure us that today's recycled announcement is not just another thin coat of green paint that will be quickly scratched off in the spending round?
It was only two and a half years ago that the right hon. Gentleman, as Minister of Agriculture, was telling us that the reformed common agricultural policy was all his own work. Can he confirm that today's remarks on the CAP mean that the Government are now moving towards the policy that the Labour party has been advocating for some years—that price support payments should go, and that fair support for agriculture should be placed alongside new investment in the rural economy and environment?
Is the Secretary of State seriously seeking to encourage the selling off of more county council smallholdings? Is he not aware that the policy of both the agricultural workers union and the National Farmers Union is that those smallholdings should be retained?
Finally, on transport, is the Secretary of State aware that there has been a disastrous collapse in bus services in many rural areas? Local bus passenger journeys outside London have declined by more than a quarter since deregulation. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make a significant impact on the desperate shortage of transport services in rural areas if he continues to back deregulation? Will he also accept that the Government's deeply unpopular rail privatisation plans would pose a threat to rural stations and rural services in particular?
Has not the Government's recent agenda shown just how out of touch they have become with rural communities, as witness their proposals to privatise the Post Office and the Forestry Commission. and to abolish the agricultural wages boards? Labour fought successfully with rural communities against all those proposals. Does the Secretary of State accept that, while the Government have failed our rural communities, it is the Labour party that is addressing the real needs of people in the


countryside? That is why so many Conservative MEPs and councillors have lost their seats to Labour in the past 18 months.
Of course we shall consider this White Paper carefully and with interest. Above all, however, is it not a recognition of 16 years of Government failure?

Mr. Gummer: I shall resist the temptation to indulge in party politicking, although it seems a bit thick for the Labour party to say that it is a rural party when it cannot even allow its shadow Environment Secretary to reply to a statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment. That is because the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman knows so little about rural life that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has to answer instead. I am surprised that he knows so little about England that he does not even realise that village schools in Warwickshire, and in Stratford-on-Avon in particular, are being closed at the instigation of Labour-controlled Warwickshire county council.
I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman should dare to talk about agriculture as he does. I note that he has to fill in for the entire Labour agriculture Front-Bench group-but, as they represent Deptford, Camden and agricultural Greenwich, one can understand why that is necessary.
When talking about agriculture, the subject that he is supposed to know about, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East seems to have missed the fact that the reform of the CAP put support for environmentally friendly farming at its centre, whereas it had been a peripheral, add-on extra. That is the reform that we carried through, with precious little support from the Labour party, whose members, in so far as they were able to understand the rural dimension, did nothing to support rural people, farmers and farm workers.
As for county council smallholdings, the hon. Gentleman should have checked the facts. The number of county council smallholdings which act as a ladder into agriculture, as they were intended to do, is infinitesimal, which is why we believe that using the resources for other rural purposes is a higher priority for improving the rural economy. That comes from a party that knows about rural areas, not a party that merely visits them occasionally at weekends.
The one thing that will give us the rail services we need in rural areas, as in the East Suffolk line in my constituency, is the privatisation of rail services, which will enable us to direct the subsidy for the very services we want, rather than the subsidy being lost in the general cost of what was British Rail, when one could not see where that money was used, and certainly did not find it used in rural areas.
What an amazing statement about the privatisation of the Post Office. Most, if not all, rural post offices are privatised. The hon. Gentleman has never been in a rural post office if he thinks that they are nationalised. Rural post offices are run by rural postmasters and postmistresses. They were overwhelmingly in favour of Post Office privatisation because it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid they were. Opposition Members do not listen to rural people, so they do not know. Greenwich appears to be so far from the country that they have not even heard what rural postmasters and postmistresses

have said. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East knows nothing about rural areas, cares less about them and should not have replied to the statement.

Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend will know that there has been much concern in rural areas about the prospect of the sale of council houses to their tenants on land that has been given to the village at less than the market price. May I take it from my right hon. Friend's statement that that position is now safeguarded, and that it will be possible for gifts of land or sales of land at less than the market price to be made to the local community in which council house tenants may be kept with no right to buy?

Mr. Gummer: That is true, and the effect of the exceptions policy, which allows land to come forward which would not otherwise be allowed for development, will, of course, be the interreaction with that, making the situation in settlements of less than 3,000 people unique. It is not something that happens elsewhere, but it does happen there and we want to safeguard it.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Secretary of State will note that, although there are many warm words in the White Paper, the real test will be in the Budget which is yet to come. For example, will there be money to restore the cuts in rural housing association funding for new build in relation to the homes that he talked about in rural communities?
Will the current review of sparsity factors which the Department is undertaking lead to big cuts in rural council funding, as those councils expect? Will there be funding to councils to give rate relief to local post offices and to small businesses in village centres that he talks about, and will he respond to the call by his own Conservative party activists at his conference, who do know rural areas and who asked for the cap to be lifted on local rural councils?

Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Gentleman should know that the review of the sparsity factor was asked for by Labour councils in association with Liberal councils—in most counties, the difference is difficult to see. They are working closely hand in hand in ruining our rural areas and supporting urban areas instead.
That is what is happening in my county, where Ipswich is the only part that counts and rural areas have been betrayed by Labour and Liberal councillors together. I find it difficult to take the hon. Member's views on rural areas seriously when we note what is actually happening in rural county councils controlled by his party alone or in coalition with the Labour party, where they have given way to the megaphone of the towns instead of supporting the needs of the countryside. He will find out what is in the Budget when the Budget comes.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries): I warmly welcome the White Paper. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a profitable agriculture is a prerequisite of enhancing and beautifying the countryside and looking after the habitat? With my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he do all he can to achieve just that within the CAP?

Mr. Gummer: Of course. The battle to ensure that we did not have the MacSharry plan, which would have made our agriculture unprofitable and which in many regions was supported by Opposition parties, involved an
important change of attitude, but we still have not moved far enough into a situation in which farmers are supported for looking after the land in an environmentally friendly way. We still have too much weight on production support; I look forward to a CAP that moves closer to selling goods at a proper price level and to providing help for farmers to farm in a way that enhances the countryside.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Will the Secretary of State tell us how much it will cost, where the money will come from and who will pay?

Mr. Gummer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read every word of the White Paper, where he will see very clearly that, instead of the usual Labour party view that one can solve all problems by throwing money at them, we have shown that, by changing the nature of the way in which we look at the countryside, and by building on what we are already spending and what we have already done, we can make a huge difference to the countryside. The hon. Gentleman has not yet had an opportunity to read what is a long, complicated and extremely interesting report. I hope that he will do so, and that when he does he will not make such off-the-cuff remarks.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his support and encouragement of village stores and his resistance to what I call supermarket mania will be widely welcomed in Cambridgeshire? Will my right hon. Friend address an entirely different matter which is of great concern in what is the fastest growing county in the country and the one with the worst road accident record? Will my right hon. Friend look at the problem of development where, in the case of the crazy proposals in the so-called Cambourn development, thousands more vehicles will be thrown on to a road that is already extremely dangerous? Will my right hon. Friend please discuss that serious problem with those in the Department of Transport?

Mr. Gummer: We will have to see some development in the countryside. I hope that we can change the social conditions whereby, because of the break-up of marriages, more and more units of accommodation are demanded for the same population. That is one of the serious matters that must concern us. We are talking about perhaps a further 2 million homes. I want to see the majority of those—as many as possible—in the centres of our cities. I want to see the re-use of brown land where there is the necessary infrastructure.
I must tell my hon. Friend that there is to be consultation about how we will meet those requirements. One of the issues that will be raised is that of new settlements and the roads that service them. I hope that my hon. Friend will play a part in that consultation.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Secretary of State is always pressing the Labour party on how much our programmes will cost. Can we have a clear answer to a simple question? How much will it cost to meet all those promises made to the British people? How much taxpayers' money will be spent in supporting this statement? Let us have a clear answer to the question.

Mr. Gummer: A clear answer to the question is that a large amount of that money is already being spent.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How much?

Mr. Gummer: There will be more money spent in these areas, but most of what is in the White Paper, as the hon. Gentleman will see when he reads it, is about an entire change in the way in which we look at our rural areas and making sure that the attitudes of rural people are reflected in Government policy, so that money which in the past has not come to rural areas will come to them, and so that the services of service providers, not necessarily the Government, are offered in rural areas as well as urban areas.
The White Paper has a wider range of proposals, not just for Government and local government, but for institutions outside, than any comparable White Paper. The fact that the hon. Gentleman made that comment shows that he has not yet had a chance to read the report. I hope that, when he has, he will not bother to ask that question.

Mrs. Ann Winterton (Congleton): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his White Paper, and warmly welcome many of its provisions. I particularly welcome the business rate relief scheme announced today for rural post offices and general stores, which will be very welcome in the rural areas of my constituency. In addition, I welcome the fact that affordable housing in villages will remain in the rented sector. However, like the issues that arise in smallholding, how will my right hon. Friend address the fact that, sadly, it may mean that housing is allocated once and once only? Will there be some sort of mechanism to ensure that those who become more prosperous use such housing as a first step rather than as an end-of-the-road home, if I may put it that way?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point to that, and it is why we have a series of policies which enable those who wish to buy their own home to do so on the open market with some help, in place of what would otherwise be a discount on the house on which they have paid rent over the years. As I have already announced, those schemes will be expanded and they will be available to many of those about whom we have been talking. We want those who live and who are brought up in the countryside to be able to continue to live there. The problem in many small villages is that there is no alternative space because of the strict planning provisions. Therefore, it is better to make provision for people to buy on the open market in those circumstances.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Many of the proposals in the White Paper should be welcomed by the House. On the question of restraining out-of-town shopping developments, does the Secretary of State accept that one of the problems for retail developers is the difficulty in acquiring central sites in our towns and cities that require regeneration? Has he any further proposals to facilitate and ease the acquisition of such sites in the inner parts of our towns and cities?
The business rate relief for village stores is very welcome indeed, and I hope that it will be pursued. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland to ensure that village stores throughout the whole of the United Kingdom can benefit from that measure?

Mr. Gummer: I shall certainly do the latter, if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to do so. On his comment


about the provision of central sites, we hope to persuade local authorities to take a much more active part in that, not only in helping with the assembly of land, but in being much more sensible about the provision of car parking. I am afraid that some local authorities have sought to second-guess those who wish to develop in the centre of towns by saying how much car parking they, the local authorities, think is suitable—when, after all, often the developer has built many large supermarkets throughout the country, and knows perfectly well how many car parking places are necessary.
I also hope that local authorities will recognise that the provision of car parking is much better done by those who have an interest in it, such as the retailing sector, than by the local authority, where money for the car park is often spread over many years, refurbishment does not take place and, consequently, the car parking is not acceptable, and people go to out-of-town stores instead.

Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his determination to protect the green belt, to discourage the development of out-of-town shopping centres, and to encourage the development of brown land in our towns and cities. While most people would warmly welcome measures that develop business in rural areas, will he ensure that any relaxation of planning restrictions in countryside areas outside the green belt does not assist the sort of massive over-development of the countryside that is currently being planned by local authorities such as Lancashire county council in its draft structure plan, which will eat up 6,000 acres of Lancashire countryside?

Mr. Gummer: Some of what I have seen of Lancashire county council belies the Labour party's comments about concern for the countryside. Lancashire county council has not shown any such concern under its current Labour control.
I am not suggesting any relaxation of planning arrangements, except in the following senses. First, when a local authority refuses planning permission for the re-use of an existing building, it should say what it believes the building could be used for. It cannot simply take a negative attitude; there must be a positive attempt to find a proper use for the building. Secondly, I believe that, in every case possible, such a building is better used for the provision of jobs than turned into another rural home. That was its original use in most cases, and it is one of the ways by which we can bring greater work into the countryside.
I hope that a more sensible attitude will be taken towards allowing people to begin businesses, whether in back kitchens, outhouses or the like. Often, some over-zealous local authorities prevent that, and demand that people should go to the local industrial estate—

Mr. Terry Davis: Come on.

Mr. Gummer: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that, but many of us who know about rural areas have had that sort of experience. I have no intention of permitting a general relaxation of planning arrangements.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. If I am to call all hon. Members who are interested in the statement, questions

must be brisker and answers must be equally brisk; otherwise, many hon. Members will be disappointed today.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Minister was speaking about buildings. I would like to ask him about police stations. Across a whole swathe of rural Lancashire, in towns such as Barnoldswick and Clitheroe which serve the rural areas, police stations are being closed. The police are telling the public that they have to choose between having a police station closed or having policemen or women on the beat.
Is it the case, and is the Minister advising, that police stations should double up with fire stations, parish councils, Co-ops and perhaps post offices, to ensure that the police station is a presence in the countryside?

Mr. Gummer: I do not think that I suggested any of those possibilities. It seems that the promise of 5,000 further policemen and the fact that we are suggesting in the rural White Paper a considerable increase in the number of special constables in rural areas, especially those who have a connection with a particular village, shows that we put the emphasis where it ought to be: bobbies on the beat, bobbies in the village, and a feeling that there is someone there doing the job, which is what most rural people want.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest threat to the countryside is the tremendous outspill from the big cities? The building of at least 10,000 new houses in Maidstone over the next 20 years is threatened. Does he agree that we should look at the possibility of creating new whole villages rather than simply chicken-pox development around the local area?

Mr. Gummer: In the consultation paper with which we will be proceeding early in the new year, that is obviously one of the issues that we will have to discuss. I happen to think that we also have to deal with the root cause: we need more and more units of accommodation for every thousand of the population, not only because people live longer or go away from home earlier, but simply because marriages break up so much more often. We must consider that issue in a serious way as a nation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): May I ask, as one who represents a constituency of more than 500 square miles, whether the Minister is aware that most people in those villages and small towns would take the view that he could hardly wipe away in a single statement one afternoon 16 years of unregulated market forces, which have caused damage and blight in many of those villages? I refer in particular, but not only in that respect, to those massive supermarket and hypermarket developments.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, for most people in about 100 constituencies in Britain where rural life is important, he ought to put a stop to all those new green field opencast applications. I do not suppose for a minute that there is anything in the White Paper to put a stop to that.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want me to join him in saying that I am entirely supportive of the 16 years, which saw the major changes in our rural society brought about by the environmentally sensitive areas—a system copied throughout Europe and


the world. It has meant that large sums of money have gone into the rural environment, and that the Environment Agency has been set up after the very successful setting up of the National Rivers Authority.
In the past 16 years, more attention has been given to our rural areas than perhaps in any time since the war. So I have nothing to be ashamed of from the past, but I want to do better in the future and to build on the excellence of the past. We are recognised throughout Europe for the excellence of our rural policy, and we wish to continue that. We do not have desertification in our rural areas: we have people moving in, so good is the policy.

Mr. John Redwood: I welcome the Secretary of State's emphasis on local decision taking, and his wish to see the countryside protected. Does he agree that he should look again at the way in which the five-year supply of land is calculated, and base it more on market experience—the number of houses people want to build and can sell—and rather less on the apocalyptic dreams of his officials about the likely collapse of the family? Surely, as members of the party of the family, we should support the family, not forecast its demise.

Mr. Gummer: I have scaled down as far as is humanly possible the concerns of a county such as Berkshire, for example. But the figure which Berkshire has agreed to accept of 40,000 homes is significantly less than the number which has been proposed by most of the authorities in the areas concerned, based upon the most, if I may say so, conservative figuring. We have to consider such matters seriously. My right hon. Friend's own record shows that he at least thinks that concern for the family is a matter for all of us.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the Secretary of State reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about opencast mining? Does he accept that opencast developments provide very few jobs and seriously disrupt the landscape and rural communities of the areas involved? He must surely accept that the time has come to review the planning regulations and planning assumptions about opencast developments by the private sector.

Mr. Gummer: I have already done that; it was one of the first things I did. I reviewed the planning arrangements for opencast developments, and transformed the nature of the proof required. The proof is now very much more difficult to get, and it is also more difficult to get opencast mining permission. We made that change not because of the Labour party but because our party is concerned about our rural areas. The effect has been dramatic; the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is just wrong.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Is it not the case that the White Paper was produced after the most extensive consultation ever undertaken the length and breadth of England, during which the Government listened above all to those who live and work in rural areas? Is it not right that this White Paper should be produced by the real party of the countryside, in contrast to what was produced on the back of an envelope by the townies opposite who represent seats in Camden and Edinburgh? Will not the White Paper create the right tone for the important debate that must follow on the future of our rural areas?

Mr. Gummer: There was more consultation on this White Paper than on almost anything that I can remember in government. My right hon. Friend is right to point out that practically nothing in the consultation stemmed from any suggestions made by the Opposition. The Labour party is unable to offer anything to country people, for it is an urban party, with no interest in the countryside except when votes are at stake.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the deep concern felt by the farming population about the failure of young people to enter agriculture, and the consequent continuing increase in the average age of farmers. Does he recognise that it is important to have a sufficient number of people working in agriculture, not only to guarantee food production in the future but to ensure environmental protection?
Furthermore, the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Union that has no package of support to enable young people to enter the industry. Will he undertake to press the matter with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and is there something about it in the White Paper?

Mr. Gummer: I have several times—as Minister of Agriculture, and since—considered whether such a package would be effective, and I must say that I do not think it would. Much more effective has been the reform of agricultural land tenure, which means that many more farms will be available for letting than would otherwise have been the case—clearly, what the Government and the Country Landowners Association suggested turns out to be true. One sadness is that that legislation was opposed by the Opposition, who do not understand rural life, and prove as much whenever there is the possibility of a vote.

Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister accept that many people, in my constituency and in the country as a whole, will warmly welcome the White Paper, especially its emphasis on parish councils and the new opportunities that are to be given to them to play a more active part in the daily life of their communities, and its emphasis on a sensible examination of the common agricultural policy and its impact on, for example, forestry?
Should not everyone who has a real interest in the rural community read the White Paper and take an active part in the further consultation process, so that we can build on the White Paper and expose members of the Labour party as the urban townies they are, as pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins)?

Mr. Gummer: I thank my hon. Friend. I believe that, within the European Union, we can develop a common agricultural policy that is more effective in supporting the environment. We need to work with our partners because alone we would find ourselves in a conflict of subsidy. I believe that my hon. Friend will find some of our suggestions in the White Paper extremely supportive.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the Minister agree that most farmers in difficult hill country are living on a knife edge, and want the Government to show that they are committed to helping hill farmers remain in production? Will he say that he recognises the concerns


of farmers who are unable to maintain drystone walls, and that Government policy is in fact making that more difficult for them?

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have done a great deal to help farmers maintain such traditional elements, and that, in the Environment Act 1995, we took particular care to further that end. We have a long record of support for hill farmers, because there is no doubt that the countryside in the hills will remain as it is only if it is properly farmed, and animals and human beings can continue to live there. The hon. Gentleman speaks for us all when he says that hill farmers deserve the support that we give them.

Dr. Ian Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the urban townies on the Conservative side welcome his statement, especially the flexibility being introduced concerning the reuse of rural buildings, and the much-needed economic health that that will bring to the countryside? Does he accept that we are also watching with interest the progress of rate relief for rural shops? Many shops in our high streets suffer equally, and rate relief for them would be extremely popular.

Mr. Gummer: I am aware that many hon. Members—they are not confined to the Government side of the House—will find an excuse to raise a favourite topic even in unfavourable circumstances; but, I must tell my hon. Friend that, in a small remote village with one shop, the closure of that shop would make a huge difference that would not be paralleled in the cities.

Mr. Terry Lewis: How does the right hon. Gentleman square his new-found opposition to out-of-city shopping with the efforts that he has made to ensure that the Dumplington scheme in Greater Manchester has gone ahead?

Mr. Gummer: During my time as Secretary of State, I have sometimes felt it necessary to say that a development phase comes to an end, and that is what has happened—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) may make such comments, but it is rather typical of him that he has asked a question and then does not listen to the answer.
The Dumplington scheme was decided on some time ago, the circumstances were well tested in the courts, and there was no doubt that the scheme should go ahead. I have made decisions about individual schemes throughout the country, and I have believed that some should go ahead, but many I have refused. That is what the Secretary of State for the Environment has to do to fulfil his judicial function—and the hon. Member for Worsley would do better to listen to what I am saying rather than talking to his neighbour.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle: I greatly welcome the main principle behind the White Paper—to keep the countryside as a living, working place. I also welcome the thrust to increase environmental diversity. In that connection, doubling the size of our woodland in 50 years is a colossal ambition, and it was a dynamic and brave statement to make. It will make a great difference to habitats, but how will my right hon. Friend achieve that ambitious target?

Mr. Gummer: We have a whole range of programmes, not least the community forest scheme, which I support.
My hon. Friend is one of the most credible environmentalists, if not the most credible, in the House, and he will agree that we must approach the matter in many different ways.
I want to encourage farmers to do more planting, and local authorities, too, to support more planting on a wider scale. I also want to see planting in many places from which it is now excluded; that is why I hope that the green roots schemes starting in London will spread elsewhere. Over the next 50 years, we shall look to a whole range of innovative ways of doubling this nation's woodland cover—in appropriate places, not in places where it would harm wildlife.

Mr. Harry Barnes: What, as distinct from mineral planning guidance notes, is there in the White Paper about opencast mining? How can I be assured that the wide area of green belts in my constituency will not become black belts, with all the inconvenience that that causes to our citizens?

Mr. Gummer: I have addressed that question in four different places, the first of which was the change in the planning guidance that has made opencast mining much more difficult. Secondly, by reducing the land banks that local authorities have to hold, I have stopped the blight over large areas that would otherwise be used for the extraction of gravel.
Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have announced the landfill tax, which will make it more economic to use second-hand aggregates, and will therefore reduce the demand for virgin aggregates. Fourthly, we will ensure that national recycling schemes will increase the amount and availability of second-hand material, and will thus reduce the need for extra mining. The rural White Paper builds on our present success, and we will continue what we are doing.

Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend's announcement about the business rate relief will be warmly welcomed not only by sub-post offices, but by village shops. But should not the announcement go further, as such shops need support as well as advice? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that advice will come from the Rural Development Commission and that he will encourage the RDC to give such advice?
Organisations such as VIRSA—which is based in Halstock and run by Derek Smith—have done so much to assist in the introduction of co-operatives. Will such organisations be given help to enable them to do their jobs better? Will we finally have a campaign directed at those people who live in villages to say that—despite all the support that is to be given—if they do not use their local shops, they will lose them? Are not those people the key figures in this matter?

Mr. Gummer: We hope to bring together all the people concerned with the matter, and that is one reason why I am determined that the White Paper should be read in the round. It must not become the sort of wish list that the Opposition constantly want. We are seeking to tap into the dynamism of our rural areas and use voluntary and other organisations more widely.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the phrase "use it or lose it" ought to be emblazoned upon every heart in rural areas. Too many people who live in country villages and


drive long distances to buy all their goods then expect the local shop to be open in the middle of a snowy winter weekend to provide them with the things that they normally buy somewhere else.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: The White Paper contains measures to improve access to the countryside. Does the Secretary of State accept that a great deal needs to be done to change the rhetoric into reality? I have in mind the White Paper commitment to allow public access to land sold off by the Forestry Commission, the need to ensure that the countryside stewardship scheme really guarantees new public access, and a recognition in the White Paper that the commitment to have the rights of way network in good order by 2000 may not be met. May I invite the Secretary of State to walk down that path with renewed vigour and enthusiasm?

Mr. Gummer: I want the 120,000 miles of footpaths to be open properly and conveniently for the public, and I would like to see more access in some areas. I would certainly like to see the introduction of many of the things to which the hon. Gentleman referred—if not all of them—but I want that to be done in a way that will enhance opportunities for walkers while being balanced with other countryside matters.
I am not a believer in the right to roam, because I think that it gives rights without obligations. It gives walkers the right to roam in other areas, including wild conservation areas which must be protected to allow the next generation of birds and butterflies to be produced. We must keep a balance, but I agree that access is a most important aspect.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I welcome the White Paper as a whole, but I wish particularly to emphasise my welcome to its emphasis on affordable housing. That is very important in areas such as mine, where we support a green belt which needs some exceptions. When my right hon. Friend is developing his policy in that area, will he pay attention to a matter of particular concern to me? The effect of pushing rents up to a market level has been that many people living in some form of public housing are on benefit of one kind or another. That is not very healthy from the point of view of families, and I would be interested in my right hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Gummer: Obviously, we must reach a balance. If rents are at a particular level, we can bring more money into the provision of supported housing. My hon. Friend is probably right to say that rents are at an appropriate level, and I have made some announcements in the past about the terms in which we will look at rents in the future. I do not think that my hon. Friend's opinions and mine will be very far apart when we get to that point.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that, although there are important social and human considerations to be borne in mind, from a landscape point of view it is pretty immaterial whether or not a house in the countryside is affordable. While I welcome the White Paper and look forward to reading it, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what it does further to protect the green belt, and particularly sites of special scientific interest?

Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear that I intend to continue the tough policy on the green belt, which I increased in toughness in my announcement on the green

belt. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. One of the reasons why I intend to treat village housing differently from other housing is that, very often, it needs to be rather more expensive in its building in order to fit in with the character of the village.
We do not want the same house type built in one village in the south of England as is built in a northern village or an eastern village. There is a great deal of difference. For example, the desire to build social housing as infilling in Suffolk villages when those villages never were infilled—they always had little gaps—is a sad result of the fact that many planners are urban people who come in from outside. I hope that we will be able to meet my hon. Friend's worries.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I welcome the broad thrust of my right hon. Friend's statement, in particular that aspect of it which enables local authorities to retain 90 per cent. of the receipts from the sale of county farms. Can he tell me who is to decide whether the measures are likely to improve the quality of life in rural areas? Will that be something for the county council, the district council or his Department? When will the scheme come into effect? Can the money be spent only on local government schemes, or may it also be spent in partnership with private landowners?

Mr. Gummer: I am going out to consultation with all those bodies. It would be wrong of me to make decisions in advance. There is a well understood consultation procedure. I hope to see all the spending of the money done in partnerships. It is only through partnership that we get the best value for money.

Mr. Michael Lord: May I welcome the White Paper, and urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the proposals for tree planting? He and I know how much Suffolk will benefit from a few more trees. Will he examine carefully not just how many trees are planted but how many survive and thrive? Unless we make sure that enough money is spent, and care is taken to look after the trees, we will not have the numbers we want. Each year we lose them, we have to start all over again.

Mr. Gummer: That is a fitting question for the president of the Arboricultural Association. I thank my hon. Friend for it. He is right to say that, in Suffolk, where we have adjoining constituencies, we have seen far too much planting of trees which have not survived, particularly in heavy droughts such as the one we have just had. I agree that we must make sure that we get value for the planting, as well as the best value for the money.

Mr. Charles Hendry: I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition that agriculture is at the core of rural life, especially in areas such as the High Peak, in spite of adverse farming conditions. I also welcome his rejection of the right to roam proposed by the Labour party, which would be devastating to many farming interests in my constituency and many others.
May I urge him to co-operate with our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture in keeping the hill livestock compensatory allowances, which target grants so effectively into rural communities, while vigorously opposing a minimum wage, which would devastate farms and many other small rural industries?

Mr. Gummer: The right to roam is a matter of concern not only to farmers. Those who are concerned with the


conservation of wildlife and want to look after landscapes of various kinds understand that, if the right to roam becomes the right to trample, which it is almost automatically, it damages the countryside. We need to balance the interests of the walker against other interests, in order that we can have a proper countryside.
As for the minimum wage, no part of the economy will be more damaged by it than the rural economy. It shows that the Labour party thinks that the only people who work in the countryside are farm workers. Many other people work in the countryside, and a minimum wage would destroy their opportunity to have a job at all. The Labour party is destructive of countryside employment.

Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he share my view that the sustainability and viability of our rural communities and villages depend on a good democratic mix? Does he agree that county councils should be encouraged to provide affordable transportation for young rural people in pursuit of their education?

Mr. Gummer: I certainly recognise the curious system of priorities that led Suffolk county council to spend £2 million on new road signs and cut off the opportunity of 16-year-olds and others to go by bus to higher education institutions. But then, a county council run by the Liberal and Labour parties is likely to do that. I think that it is wrong.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State come back to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at the beginning? Will he now come clean, and admit that many of the problems faced by rural communities, which the White Paper attempts to address, are the direct result of the deregulation policies pursued by the Government over the past 16 years?
Those include the deregulation of buses, which has deprived thousands of local communities of their only form of public transport; the promotion of out-of-town shopping centres at the expense of village shops; the promotion of opencast mining; policies that have dried up the supply of affordable homes for rent and closed village schools and small local hospitals; and a record on crime in which villages, which in the past scarcely encountered theft, drugs or violence, have been left living in fear.
On top of that, the common agricultural policy, which leads to high food prices and harms the environment, costs every family in Britain £20 a week. Unless the White Paper puts all those matters right, it is a waste of paper.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not a credible defender of the countryside. In many senses, that was the

worst contribution that he has made on this subject for a very long time. He does not understand that, all over the country, Labour councils are closing village schools without so much as a discussion with parents. He does not understand that, in many areas, deregulation has increased the number of buses available.
As for crime, he does not understand that the Labour party is soft on criminals. It has not supported a single improvement in the fight against crime which we have brought before the House. The hon. Gentleman has never made a speech asking for tougher sentences or more policemen supporting rural areas. Indeed, he has never made a speech about rural areas, so far as I understand.

Mr. Dobson: That is rubbish.

Mr. Gummer: I said, "so far as I understand", and if I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is because he uses words with a curious turn. His usual concern for rural areas is a photo opportunity rather than real concern.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member made the affirmation required by law: Chris Davies Esq., for Littleborough and Saddleworth.

Home Secretary (Prison Service)

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will wish to have notice at the earliest possible opportunity that, in view of recent developments and of the Prime Minister's failure to answer questions today, the Opposition have decided to change the subject for the half-day Opposition debate on Thursday this week, and that we will now initiate a debate on the responsibilities of the Home Secretary for the prison service.

Madam Speaker: That will be in order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

HILL LIVESTOCK

That the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1481) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wells.]

Question agreed to.

Elimination of Poverty

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to monitor the condition of their population; to require central government to publish information on the poverty of the people; to exempt pensioner households from standing charges; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; to equalise retirement ages at 60; to make provision for the calculation of social security benefits by reference to average earnings; and for connected purposes.
This is the 12th occasion on which I have sought leave to introduce such a measure, to recognise the problems that many poor people face and the poverty in which many pensioners are forced to live.
A media silence has been cast over the poverty that exists throughout Britain and over the campaigning work done by many pensioners' organisations to expose the disgracefully low state old age pension and demand fairer treatment. This summer, the Pensioners' Parliament was held in Blackpool, amidst a virtual media blackout of its work, despite its. decisions and widespread support for its call for the state pension to be at least one third of average earnings and uprated annually in line with average earnings.
I will cover some of the points in the Bill in a moment, but the House ought to be aware that the most telling statistic about Britain—one of the richest countries in the world—over the past decade has been that it has had the largest growth in the disparity between rich and poor, and that that is getting worse. People did not always sleep on the streets in this country; they did not always beg. Young people did not always have to sleep in barns and disused garages. We did not always have the sight of people being discharged from mental institutions to beg and roam without any visible means of support. It is a crying shame that such poverty exists in our society. My Bill seeks to draw attention to those problems and proposes some measures to alleviate it.
First, we must establish a national poverty line, which the Government have signally failed to do. The Bill requires the Government to publish information on poverty every year and set a benchmark figure for poverty. Every time such a figure is produced, the Government say that it does not tally with their figures. They have to be brought to account.
The most recent figures for the poverty line were provided by the Social Security Select Committee in January 1993. It reported that, between 1979 and 1989, the number of people at or below benefit level rose from 7.7 million to 11.4 million. Lone parents, the unemployed and pensioners are among the poorest people in the country.
Between 1979 and 1993, the number of individuals in households with incomes of less than half the average went up from 5 million to 14.1 million. That figure included 4 million children. In other words, 4 million children are being brought up in households in a desperate state of poverty. It is small wonder that there is a high level of under-achievement in school, and that so many other social problems are associated with it.
The figures for income change between 1979 and 1989 show that someone who, in 1979, was earning £321 per week was earning £520 per week by 1993; someone

earning £171 per week was earning £236. However, some of the poorest people in our society, who in 1979 were on £75 per week, were getting £62 by 1993. In other words, while the income for the richest has gone up by nearly two thirds, the income for the poorest has gone down by 17 per cent. That is a disgrace and a scandal. Those issues must be addressed.
If hon. Members care to read the reports of their local health and medical officers, they will find that, among the poorest people, life expectancy is lowest, the incidence of cancer highest and infant mortality highest. All the indices that led the great social reformers of the 19th century to introduce social reforms demonstrate yet again that the greatest enemy of good health is poverty.
Other statistics are, in many ways, more frightening. The suicide rate, for example, among young men aged 15 to 24 has increased by 75 per cent. 'The increase in the number of pensioners living in poverty who do not have access to an occupational scheme, a private scheme or any other scheme is increasing rapidly.
The Government like to claim that pensioners' incomes have gone up by 34 per cent. since 1979. That is not what people tell me on the streets and in the clubs of my constituency. That is not what one finds at any pensioners' meeting anywhere in the country. One finds the opposite to be the case. There is degrading poverty, especially among older women pensioners. There is the degradation of pensioners queuing up for stale bread outside supermarkets at 5 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, because that is the only way in which they can make ends meet.
The Bill is intended to address some of those problems. It is not possible to describe it all in 10 minutes. I make the point, however, about the huge increase in tax allowances for the richest in our society. If those tax allowances had been evenly distributed rather than handed to the richest, they would have made the poorest household at least £4 a week better off in real terms.
The Bill would require local authorities and health authorities to publish statistics every year on the poverty of the population whom they represent and especially on the services and provisions made available for the elderly within their communities. The Bill would also make the Government publish every year their statistics on the causes of and elimination of poverty within our society.
Many of us are fed up with the consensus that the welfare state is no longer affordable—that the state pension is too high and no longer sustainable, and that we therefore have to go down the road of the private, portable pension scheme. Most people are worse off and more insecure, and they live more precarious lives than was the case 15 years ago. The Bill would address some of those points.
Included in the Bill is a provision exempting pensioner households from standing charges as a way in which to increase the money available to them. In view of the profitability of the gas, electricity and telephone companies, such things are easily affordable. Likewise, all the travel schemes that were brought in by progressive Labour authorities in the 1970s and 1980s are under threat through the privatisation of our transport system. There is a need for a universal, nationwide scheme.
Above all, we must look at the way in which social security entitlements are calculated. In 1980, Geoffrey Howe, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, claimed that


his greatest achievement was to break the link between pensions and earnings and to substitute the retail prices index. He has cost every pensioner more than £20 a week by that single decision. The pension is falling from 24 per cent. of average earnings to a mere 10 per cent. of average earnings. On top of that, there is the insult of saying to women in work that they must work until the age of 65 to qualify for a state pension. We should be reducing the age at which people have the right to retire to 60 for both women and men.
This issue will dominate this country for a long time to come. If the policy of continuing to cut the welfare state and to encourage people to take out private health, medical and pension insurance continues, there will be disasters and crises in future. We must change the terms of the debate.
A civilised, decent society would not allow people to sleep on the streets. It would house everybody, and would not allow its senior citizens to live in the abject poverty and misery in which they have to live at present. The Bill would at least guarantee that their increases would be in line with earnings, and there would be a national focus on the problems of poverty for all our people.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Llew Smith, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Bill Michie and Mr. Tony Banks.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to monitor the condition of their population; to require central government to publish information on the poverty of the people; to exempt pensioner households from standing charges; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; to equalise retirement ages at 60; to make provision for the calculation of social security benefits by reference to average earnings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 October, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) read out the title of his Bill, the Elimination of Poverty Bill, he caused great amusement on the part of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to explain to us why he was so highly amused when somebody was talking about grants—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for the Minister.

Orders of the Day — Defence

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question  [16 October]:

That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995 contained in Cm. 2800.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Which amendment was: to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

'declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995; condemns the continued instability in the armed forces caused by the Government's failure to establish a long-term strategic overview; notes that this undermines the morale and operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom's armed forces and fails to prepare the United Kingdom for the challenges of the post cold war world; calls upon the Government to establish a strategic defence review; deplores the way that United Kingdom defence capabilities and installations are being run down in an unstructured way instead of the Government seeking to manage the worst effects of change on communities and individuals through a defence diversification agency; urges a positive approach in the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and the immediate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention; condemns the Government's financial mismanagement and waste in defence; congratulates the excellent work carried out by British forces throughout the world and expresses pride in their continuing presence in United Nations peacekeeping operations'.—[Dr. David Clark.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[Relevant documents: The Ninth Report from the Defence Committee on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995, Session 1994–95, HC 572; the First Report from the Defence Committee on the Defence Estate, HC 67; the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 318; the Fifth Report on Defence Costs Study Follow-up: Defence Medical Services, HC 102; the Sixth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 641; the Sixth Report on Defence Use of Civilian Transport Assets and Personnel, HC86; and the Seventh Report on Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance and Target Acquisition, HC 319.]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to the Government motion. Before I start, I must say something about the speeches yesterday by the two Opposition spokesmen on defence, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Before I do, I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for South Shields for wrongly mentioning that he had not moved the motion. He had moved it so I was wrong to say that. All of us, however, who heard those speeches found them to be truly disturbing and, perhaps, an exceptional revelation because they demonstrated an inherent triviality, a total lack of understanding and an apparent lack of any concern for the big and complicated issues that dominate defence today.
Of course, we understand that the Labour party is on difficult ground. It is wedged between very real internal splits on defence, astonishing superficiality and ignorance and, in the case of the hon. Member for Carlisle, an almost hopeless naivety combined with an unhealthy obsession with something called sexism.
It is plain that Labour simply does not understand the armed forces. It has no vision and no strategy for defence; its views are null, void and invalid. Labour is, in short,


wholly unconvincing and, as every sensible person in the land knows, it could not and cannot be trusted with the defence of the realm.

Dr. John Gilbert: While the Minister is in an unusually apologetic mood, may I ask him whether he is correctly quoted at column 115 as saying that this party, of which I am a member, has for the past four elections been "entirely unilateralist and pacifist"? Is he correctly quoted? Would he like to amend that remark or, if not, would he repeat it outside the House?

Mr. Soames: I was referring to the manifestos and not to the honourable exceptions, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who have always championed the cause of multilateral defence.
One of the recurring themes of yesterday's debate was the many expressions of pleasure at the success of the VE and VJ day celebrations. This is an appropriate occasion for us to reflect on what has been a most significant and poignant year. The whole nation came together to remember how much we all owe to the wartime generation and the armed forces were able to pay their own tribute to the past in a series of dignified and extremely moving ceremonies.
The House was able to pay its own unique and touching tribute through Madam Speaker. Some 57 world leaders gathered in London to mark the end of the war in Europe. It seemed that the entire nation paused in solemn and grateful reflection for the two-minute silence on the evening of 8 May.
I think, however, that the images that will rest longest in many of our minds were those of VJ day—of the millions of poppies drifting down from a Lancaster bomber and of the rank on rank of veterans, no longer the forgotten army, marching past Her Majesty in a seemingly endless stream. It is unlikely that there will ever again be a parade of such pride and distinction as when the nation united around the person of the sovereign to give due honour to worthy pride and still, in many cases, to remember unforgettable and inconsolable sadness.
I had the honour when in Ottawa a few weeks ago, on my way to visit our troops training at Suffield in Canada, to unveil a stone plaque at the foot of the Canadians' beautiful and impressive national war memorial. It was a tribute from all the people of Britain to the 111,548 heroic and selfless Canadians who gave their lives in the cause of peace and freedom in two world wars. It was a small but truly heartfelt token of the solemn gratitude, respect and admiration of the British people to the Canadians for their supreme gallantry and almost incredible endurance in circumstances which today are almost beyond the call of modern imagination.

Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the declining band of people who served in the far east were particularly touched and impressed by the remarkable dignity of the VJ celebrations? Will he assure the House that the Government will not forget them in the future, particularly those who were prisoners of war of the Japanese?

Mr. Soames: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that one of the central points of the celebrations was the tribute and promise parade when just such a promise was made and just such a tribute was paid.
All the countries that fought alongside us are bound together with us still to this day by sometimes hidden but nevertheless profound ties of blood and sentiment which have stood the test of time. The message of the commemorations is that we must ensure that the awful sacrifices of our forebears and their courage, comradeship and sense of purpose are put to good use in this disorderly and dangerous world. The VE-VJ celebrations showed that their actions still command to this day the wonder, the reverence and the gratitude of the British people.
The House will, I know, wish to congratulate the world war 2 commemoration team at the Ministry of Defence on its wholly remarkable work in staging many of these unforgettable events.

Mr. David Martin: May I tell my hon. Friend how much his presence in Portsmouth was appreciated during the course of the commemorations and how much I endorse what he has just said? In Portsmouth, they do not feel forgotten any longer.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the highlights of the commemorations were the celebrations for the forgotten fleet. I pay tribute to the town of Portsmouth and all those who organised what was a deeply memorable and moving parade and one which I shall never forget.

Mr. David Winnick: When the Minister pays tribute, as he rightly does, to all those who fought, suffered and died in the last war, is not it necessary for us to remember that we were collaborating with other countries to defeat fascism and, though many of us may have many reservations about possible developments in the European Union, many of us were sickened by the sort of xenophobia demonstrated by the Secretary of State for Defence in Blackpool last week? Surely the last thing that we want to do is to create such anti-foreign and anti-European feeling which causes such deep offence abroad, and rightly so.

Mr. Soames: That was a uniquely foolish and stupid point to make, my having paid a lasting tribute to all those who fought beside us, and particularly in front of my right hon. Friend who had himself done exactly the same thing yesterday. But I suppose it comes of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
I come now to the quite exceptional range of activities in which the armed forces have been involved during the last year. Given both the events of the last few months and the quite extraordinary achievements and efforts of the British forces in the theatre, I will start with the former Yugoslavia. All told, there are currently some 8,000 personnel from the United Kingdom on the ground in the former Yugoslavia. About 3,000 more act in support of United Nations and NATO operations.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a handsome and warm tribute to the part played by the British forces in the United Nations and NATO operations to make Sarajevo safe for the civilian population following the brutal marketplace attack on 28 August. Twenty eight British aircraft—Tornado F3s, Harrier GR7s, laser-designating Jaguars, and Sea Harriers from HMS Invincible—all played their part in this the largest air operation in the alliance's history.
On the ground, 19 regiment Royal Artillery, the Highland Gunners, from the rapid reaction force, provided vital support from their positions on Mount Igman. They


have now been dug in on Mount Igman for more than 80 days—a truly impressive example of toughness, endurance and resolve.
In central Bosnia, British forces remain at the forefront of the United Nations efforts to sustain the peace between the Croats and Muslims. That work is not as exciting to the media as air strikes and, as such, is more often than not overlooked by them, but we should be in no doubt as to its importance. It too is a difficult and sometimes extremely dangerous task. We saw the steadiness and courage displayed by the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 24th of foot, during the hostage-taking incident in May this year.
For almost two years now, peace, albeit a fragile one, has existed between the Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia. British forces have been absolutely key in sustaining and nurturing this. They have helped to reconnect water and electricity supplies, to mend roads and to rebuild schools. They are working with local people and they are slowly helping them to take back control of their own lives and, with skill and patience, they are quietly laying the foundations for a lasting peace.

Mr. Llew Smith: As the Minister is describing our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, would he care to comment on the fact that we supplied many of the arms which almost certainly have been used in the present conflict?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman entered into a rather futile discussion on those lines last night which I do not propose to continue.

Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that to carry out those and other important tasks the strength of regimental tradition is most important? Does he further agree that it does not help troops if they are second guessed by an army of accountants and experts in Whitehall when they need reasonable discretion on the ground under their own officers, commands and orders? Will my hon. Friend look favourably on many of the points made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the excellence of our troops and the importance of supporting that excellence?

Mr. Soames: There was a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said in the debate last night with which I profoundly disagreed and there were a number of things with which I wholly agreed, as my hon. Friend knows, one of them being that the regimental system is the backbone of the British Army. I have to tell my right hon. Friend, even though I know that it will come as a terrible shock to him, that there is no question of anyone second guessing commanders' choices and decisions on the ground. Commanders make their own choices and decisions within the orders that they are given. My right hon. Friend, with his background, before he felt that he had to leave these places of high authority, will know that the Royal Welch Fusiliers sustain themselves in their hour of trial with years and generations of experience and loyalty, and that no other regiment in the British Army would have been more fit to be under seige than the 24th of foot.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Soames: No, I must continue.
In the Adriatic, the Royal Navy continues to play an important role. Her Majesty's ships Brazen and Glasgow are enforcing the arms embargo and trade sanctions—

Mr. Julian Brazier: Having served in a famous regiment himself, I am sure that my hon. Friend needs no lectures from me on the regimental tradition. But is he aware that the Bett report, which he defended last night, says at paragraph 7.13 that the proposals would not be compatible with the existing regimental system?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend seems to have difficulty understanding that the Bett report is not a settled piece of Government policy. The Bett report is a consultation document which, as we have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman, is being considered at some length by many working groups within the Ministry of Defence. Some of the recommendations in the Bett report will not see the light of common day and some will. It is an excellent piece of work which is considered by all three services to be worthy of the most serious consideration.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I acknowledge everything that the Minister has said about the excellent work that has been done by the British forces in UNPROFOR over the years. I have seen some of it for myself and I know that the British troops are as keen as any to play their part in peacekeeping and in protecting humanitarian aid. Can he therefore explain to me why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that the British forces deployed on Mount Igman were not prepared to do what their French counterparts were doing to protect British humanitarian aid convoys?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman took up more than his fair share of the debate last night. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman made a perfect nuisance of himself at a time when we were extremely busily engaged. [Interruption.] I acknowledged last night the admirable work that the hon. Gentleman has done with Edinburgh Direct Aid. I applaud what he did, but I do not share his interpretation of the events that he describes.
In addition, the Royal Navy Carrier Group, which currently includes Invincible and Boxer, remains on station to provide support for the British contingent if necessary. Earlier in the year, I was delighted to return to Bosnia; as always, I was extremely impressed by the work being carried out by our forces in their peacekeeping role.
I visited Gioia del Colle in Italy, where the Jaguars and Tornados are based. From Italy, I flew on to Illustrious before visiting the Royal Highland Fusiliers in Vitez, the household cavalry regiment in Maglaj, the Royal Welch Fusiliers at Bugogno and men of the Royal Engineers at a number of locations. I was also delighted to visit the detachment of 845 Naval Air Squadron with its Sea King helicopters based at Split. That squadron has played an unbelievably distinguished role, taking part in many life-saving operations, often in the most hostile and difficult conditions, and they deserve great credit.
Further east, it is easy to forget that a significant British presence has remained in the Gulf region since the expulsion of Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait.

Mr. Keith Mans: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to clear up a point that he made in his winding-up speech yesterday? He said:
Not only have we not gone too far but there … will be further cuts and attempts to keep down the cost of the way in which we do our business."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]


Will my hon. Friend confirm that he agrees with the Prime Minister, who said that there would be no further cuts in the overall defence budget in the future, and that his remarks were aimed solely at cutting, within the overall budget, areas that he thought could be cut without jeopardising the front line?

Mr. Soames: I made plain what I meant in my speech last night. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that I am well aware of what I said. What I said, and what I meant, was that the Ministry of Defence is a very large organisation that can never be complacent about bearing down on its costs. Its administrative costs, like those of any major organisation, will need to be ruthlessly trimmed at all times, in order particularly to preserve—as the Prime Minister said—the integrity and stability of the front line. I meant nothing more and nothing less than that.
I have just returned from visiting the Royal Air Force squadrons deployed as part of the coalition operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch. Those operations enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.
There is no doubt about the need for continued vigilance in regard to Saddam Hussein. As the House will be aware, Ambassador Ekeus issued a report to the UN Security Council last week. He confirmed that Iraq is still far from complying with UN resolutions. For the first time, we have a detailed catalogue of Saddam Husseins's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The report includes shocking details of Iraq's biological weapons programme. It is vital that the international community continue its stand that Iraq must comply with the Security Council resolutions. Until then, it is clear that Iraq will remain a threat to the region and to our strategic interests.
Alongside our coalition partners—the United States, France, Turkey and our Gulf allies—we have worked to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. To date, the Royal Air Force has flown over 12,000 sorties aimed at deterring repression of the Iraqi people, observing military activity and policing the no-fly zones.
The no-fly zones present dangerous conditions and a testing environment. The men and women whom I met at Incirlick, Dhahran and Riyadh are playing a vital role in keeping the pressure on Saddam Hussein. They have won the admiration and respect of their coalition partners for their bravery in daily flying into a potentially hazardous and very dangerous scenario. It is a measure of their guts and pure determination that the RAF's operational mission success rate stands at over 96 per cent.
Six Tornado GR1s and one VC10 tanker are deployed to each operation. They fly an average of 17 operational flying hours a day; in all, there are some 200 sorties a month. These operations underline the importance that we continue to attach to monitoring activities in Iraq. They send a clear message to the Iraqi dictator that we will not tolerate any repetition of the adventurism and disregard for international law that he has previously displayed.
The House will recall—with pleasure, I am sure—the rapid and emphatic international response to Saddam's provocative action last October. The spearhead battalion and additional Tornado aircraft were deployed to Kuwait within 48 hours.
Those two operations, Provide Comfort and Southern Watch, are truly formidable, and the people of this country can be very proud of the RAF's contribution.
As the House knows, the United Kingdom has continued to be a leading contributor to peacekeeping operations. At the time of last year's debate, a British contingent 600 strong was about two thirds of the way through a three-month deployment to Rwanda. Logistics specialists had made substanial improvements in the force's supply organisation, and 23 Para Field Ambulance gave crucial and brilliant medical care to returning refugees, many of whom owe their lives to those young men and women. A field squadron from the Royal Engineers and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers helped to reconstruct Rwanda's shattered infrastructure. It was a model deployment of its type, and we were pleased to be able to help that suffering and sad country in some way.
Elsewhere in Africa, between 8 February and 3 March this year the destroyer HMS Exeter joined an international task group to protect the UN forces withdrawing from Somalia. More recently, a British logistics battalion of some 650 personnel returned from a three-month deployment to Angola, where it set up the logistics infrastructure for the United Nations Angola verification mission. All three services were represented in that thoroughly joint operation in the British contingent, which was supported by the royal fleet auxiliary Sir Galahad.
By the time that it left in early August, the battalion had established and handed over to the United Nations a fully comprehensive system for receiving, storing and distributing supplies to peacekeepers in the field. Their contribution to the crucial early stages of the operation has been warmly praised by the United Nations commander, and they deserve the greatest possible credit.
The services also provided extensive assistance in the Caribbean during a recent spate of natural disasters. On 20 July, the West Indies guard ship Southampton and the royal fleet auxiliary Oakleaf were diverted to Montserrat when volcanic activity started on the island. Experts and advisers were also sent from the British military advisory and training team in Barbados to help prepare for a possible evacuation. A small team from the Irish Guards arrived shortly afterwards, with men from the Royal Marines fleet standby rifle company who were later deployed to provide internal security assistance for the Royal Montserrat police force, while men of the commando logistics regiment were deployed to Antigua to help prepare for any evacuees. The units involved were also able to help clear up in the aftermath of the hurricanes Luis and Marilyn.
It is easy to describe the operations that capture media attention—however fleetingly—but it is not only service men and women deployed on those operations who support our defence interests overseas. I want to mention two groups of people who hold very responsible and important assignments, yet rarely receive any credit. I speak first of the 119 attachés and defence advisers, and their wives, who support our defence interests in 71 countries around the world. That is vital work for our wider national interest.
Secondly, more than 400 personnel from the three services are employed in an advisory or training capacity in 24 countries and territories. They are a critical factor in cementing good defence relations, and in helping our friends to provide for their own security and that of the regions in which they live.
But, of course, it is close to home where, over recent years, the most sacrifices have been made. In the past 18 months, there have been some wonderful changes for the


better in Northern Ireland. When I first visited the Province, the ceasefires were a new and uncertain development; in succeeding months, hopes and expectations of a lasting peace have grown steadily as people have become used to living without the terror of the bomb and the bullet. They will not lightly forgive anyone who returns to violence.
All three services have made an outstanding and incalculable contribution over the past 26 years to the Government's endeavours to maintain law and order in Northern Ireland and to restore normality. In particular I should like to single out for mention the contribution of the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment and their forerunners in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Their sacrifices over the years and their continued bravery deserve our unqualified admiration and respect.
As Armed Forces Minister, it is one of my greatest pleasures and one of my primary duties to visit as many units of the armed forces, and the civilians who support them, as possible. I have in the past year managed to visit over 50 different service units both here and overseas. They have included visits to command headquarters of all three services; operational RAF stations; ships of the Royal Navy; and regiments both on their home bases and deployed on operations and overseas.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I know that the Minister has visited both RAF bases in my constituency. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men who so tragically lost their lives in the Nimrod accident in Canada? In paying tribute to all who work in related defence areas, will he perhaps tell us when he expects the inquiry to be completed, since speculation brings no consolation to the relatives?

Mr. Soames: First, I wholly endorse the sentiment behind the hon. Lady's question. Secondly, I thank the Canadians for the unbelievable help they gave our military staff in Ottawa, who were under great pressure and handled the matter with distinction and sensitivity. Thirdly, I praise the hon. Lady for her unstinting support for the RAF, whose members regularly tell me how grateful they are for her support.
As to the board of inquiry, these matters take a very long time. There is no intention to delay on our part: only a resolve to get to the bottom of events and to find out what happened.
I had the great pleasure a few weeks ago of going to Canada to visit the training areas of Suffield and Wainwright, where we train nearly 20,000 British soldiers a year in the most high intensity end of the land battle. These are exceptional training areas; they provide the most exacting conditions, not only for live firing but for use of the tactical engagement simulation, which has revolutionised Army training and which will continue to do so.
The House should be extremely proud of the way all three services have managed, even in a period of prolonged and easy peace, to maintain the highest possible standard of training at the high intensity end of conflict. Were it not for this, the forces would not be nearly as good as they are at peacekeeping operations. It is because of the strength, discipline and skill that they derive from

training hard that they can undertake peacekeeping operations so successfully. We are resolved at all costs to maintain these skills.
I have also tried wherever possible to spend time at some of those units that are perhaps less in the limelight than some of our front-line troops but who nevertheless make an invaluable contribution. Places such as the Army school of catering—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I bet he enjoyed that.

Mr. Soames: I did indeed. It is safe to say that they laid on a very good show. Such places as the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency would perhaps not spring immediately to mind for someone planning a programme of service visits, but to visit them gives one not only a feel of the enormous depth and breadth of skills but an indication of the exceptional size of the areas of business in which the services are involved.
In debating the activities in which the armed forces are currently engaged, the focus will tend naturally to be on our regular forces. So I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Government's wholehearted recognition of the vital contribution that the reserves make to our defence capabilities. We are very lucky in this country to have so many splendid people who are prepared to give up their time in these vital tasks.
Earlier in the year, a composite company from the Territorial Army was deployed to the Falkland Islands. The deployment was a great success and it is likely to be followed by others. In addition, members of the Territorial Army continue to undertake short periods of service to fill vacant posts in units deploying on operational tours and exercises.
The numbers vary from day to day. But let me give the House a snapshot. On 30 September this year there were two reservists serving in support of the enforcement of the no-fly zone in northern Iraq, and 82 supporting operations in the former Yugoslavia. Wherever they are and whatever they do, they make an invaluable contribution.
What of the future? Over the years, the reserves have adapted to meet changing circumstances and commitments and have become experts in a wide range of skills. I want to leave the House in no doubt of our absolute intention to maintain sizeable reserve forces, and of our commitment to enhancing their role within the one-army concept. On 30 March this year, I announced the publication of "Strength in Reserve". We were delighted with the response: 504 written responses were received. Most supported our proposals. I know that many reservists have responded enthusiastically to the policy of using reserves more flexibly, and that they welcome the opportunities that the new legislation will offer them.
Having covered both the regular and reserve forces, I must take an opportunity to thank the Department's civilian work force for its vital and irreplaceable contribution. Much has been asked of it, as it has of the services, in driving forward much needed and important changes in the structure and organisation of the MOD, in improving the quality of service, and in achieving greater efficiency.
Civilian staff fill crucial roles. The caricature of the civilian at the MOD is one that I, having served there for a year and a half, deeply despise. They provide invaluable


support in every theatre and operation in which they serve. The rationalisation of the way in which the MOD carries out its activities, as set out in "Front Line First", is steadily being achieved and they are playing a full part during this great period of unsettling change.
Civilians do all this notwithstanding the massive upheaval for many hundreds of individuals and their families who are necessarily being redeployed to different areas of the country, or transferring with their work to agencies and to organisations within the private sector, or regrettably facing unavoidable redundancy.
We are very fortunate with our civilian staff, and I want to pay a warm and sincere tribute to their work at all levels of the Ministry of Defence.
I should now like to bring the House up to date with a number of important matters on which we have recently made decisions. The first of these concerns the Royal Marines units currently based in Plymouth. Following detailed consultation, I have today, with my right hon. Friend, decided that the Commando Logistics Regiment, whose living and working bases are currently split between Seaton and Coypool in Plymouth, and 59 Independent Commando 'Squadron of the Royal Engineers, currently based at Seaton, should move to Chivenor.
This arrangement will produce savings of about £2 million a year in running costs for the Royal Marines. More importantly; however, there will be significant operational and administrative advantages. At present the scope for training of both units is limited. At Chivenor it will be possible to fit both units, which are in many respects interdependent, to live, work and train together on the same site with modern, well appointed facilities.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): As a graduate of the parliamentary armed forces scheme with the Royal Marines, may I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's announcement? Chivenor is the station that never closes. In that regard, will my hon. Friend ensure that the aviation facilities remain available, since it will be useful to be able to deploy C130s and helicopters into the station?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who honourably wears two hats in this context. He is a former RAF officer who was attached to Chivenor and thus understandably resentful about being made to give it up; but he is also a graduate of the Marines armed forces scheme. I endorse what he says. There is no plan to degrade the runway; and we shall be in consultation with the Department of Transport as to the best way forward.

Mr. Nick Harvey: The community of North Devon will warmly welcome the Minister's announcement. The RAF has always enjoyed a close relationship with everyone in North Devon, and I have every confidence that the same warmth of welcome will be given to the Marines when they arrive.
I also echo remarks made about the future of the runway, about which we are all very anxious. If any shared use of the runway can be found that would make it viable, that would be to the benefit of all.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was in his constituency not long ago speaking for the young man who will be replacing him in the House after

the next election and I was left in no doubt as to the level of support that exists. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has always been supportive of the services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will know that Chivenor is an outstanding base. It has wonderful facilities—I pay tribute to the Royal Air Force for the excellent facilities that it left behind there. As I have said, I understand its resentment at having to give Chivenor up, but Chivenor has gone to a good home and I know that the Royal Marines will love and cherish it.
The second decision concerns the base porting arrangements for royal naval vessels. All royal naval vessels are now base ported at one of the three naval bases, Portsmouth, Devonport and Faslane.
Against the background of the successful outcome of the "Front Line First" studies, we have been considering what arrangements should apply to the landing platform helicopter HMS Ocean, which, for the benefit of Opposition Members, is a ship, when she enters service in 1997 and to the planned replacement for the current landing platform docks, HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless—they are also ships. We have also considered whether any consequential adjustments might be necessary to the existing plan for other vessels.
After detailed consideration, I have decided that HMS Ocean should be based at Devonport and that she should be joined in due course by the planned replacement LPDs. We conclude that there are clear operational advantages in concentrating the amphibious vessels in Plymouth in close proximity to Royal Marine commando units based there. I can also confirm that the planned move to Portsmouth of five type 23 frigates and of some minor war vessels is proceeding.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Although I am grateful to my hon. Friend for keeping me informed of developments on the helicopter carrier and the LPD replacements, will he confirm that he has taken full account of the focus of Royal Marine activity in Whale Island in Portsmouth and also of the availability of the amphibious training ground in Browndown in my constituency? Will he confirm that putting replacement ships in Plymouth, Devonport as opposed to Portsmouth, will not in any weaken the Royal Navy's commitment to Portsmouth?

Mr. Soames: I am completely happy to give my hon. Friend, who has done so much to support the Royal Navy in Portsmouth over the years and to whom I know it is grateful, my absolute assurance that Portsmouth will remain central to the Royal Navy's operating requirements. This is a sensible and natural move. I am wholly behind it and it is completely the right thing to do. I acknowledge the wonderful facilities at Portsmouth and I have no doubt that fine use will continue to be made of them.
I deeply share the concern and distress of people in Plymouth who have been through a difficult time. Eighteen hundred marines will remain in Plymouth, even though the Commando Logistics Regiment is moving out, and I hope that the people of Plymouth will be pleased by the announcement that it will become the centre of amphibious excellence in the Royal Marines. I share the words of my hon. Friend about the importance of Portsmouth.
Last month, I also confirmed that the Royal Naval air station at Portland would close by 1 April 1999 and that the restructured naval support command headquarters would be relocated in the Bath-Bristol region.
During the Army debate in February, I confirmed that, as a result of savings from the defence costs study, we would be able to increase the number of front line army units by re-rolling the Royal Armoured Corps Training Regiment. I have decided that that regiment—the 9/12 Lancers—should be located at Swanton Morley in Norfolk.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement has announced in a written reply earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), we have selected Rosyth 2000 Ltd. as our preferred bidder for the purchase of Rosyth naval base. My hon. Friend the Minister will make a full statement towards the end of today's debate.
I have spoken at some length of the activities undertaken by our armed forces, both overseas and in the UK and I am extremely sorry to have spoken for so long and grateful to the House for its indulgence. I have a few more things I want to say.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister mentioned Rosyth and the future of the naval base but he will be aware that, in the past months, there has been considerable speculation about the refitting of submarines and surface ships, and a decision that had previously been taken as between Devonport and Rosyth has appeared to be under review. Will he be a little more unequivocal about that than Ministry of Defence spokesmen have been able to be in the press in the past two or three months?

Mr. Soames: I hope that hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not stretch into that issue, which is not within my responsibility. My hon. Friend the Minister will, however, be dealing with that tonight and, I know, will be glad to mention that.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend going to say anything at all about the cadet forces?

Mr. Soames: It is about the only thing that I am afraid I am not going to have time to discuss. I wish to talk about a number of other things and my hon. Friend and I know what they are, but we simply have not time for everything and they got a good canter last year.
We have formidable armed forces and we must ensure that we can continue to recruit and retain people of the same high quality for the armed forces of tomorrow. It is against that background that Sir Michael Bett's independent review of service career and manpower structures was commissioned. We are now studying its wide-ranging recommendations and I note the concern expressed in the House yesterday by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. That work is being taken forward in a number of major and detailed studies and our aim is to have completed the work in time to make a definitive statement on the way ahead in the spring of next year.
There is one important point of doctrine that I should stress publicly in the House. This is a good moment for me to stress this and I hope that I will have the support of the Opposition. My ministerial colleagues and I are determined to pursue joint operations and joint working

wherever we can and wherever it is sensible to do so. That represents a sea change in the way in which the Department and the armed forces conduct their business.
This year's White Paper includes special features on the most visible expressions of that change: the permanent joint headquarters, the joint rapid deployment force, on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a further announcement yesterday, and the joint service command and staff college. Those projects are all being implemented and we look forward to the activation of the PJHQ and the joint rapid deployment force next year. Over time, they will bring about a marked change in the way in which we conduct our business, in the way in which our young officers are trained, in the way in which our units operate together, and in the way in which our forces are commanded. All those will be changes for the better.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: Has the Minister read the report in yesterday's Independent which casts doubts on the estimates of the cost of the establishment of the joint service college at Camberley? Are the estimates contained in the paper presented with the defence estimates that there will be substantial savings still correct, and can the target date of 1997 be achieved, given that the Independent indicates that that is unlikely?

Mr. Soames: I do not wish to elude the question, but I have not read the report. A good deal of work is going on on that project and I will gladly examine the points that the hon. Gentleman makes and let him know. I am afraid that I returned from abroad only yesterday.
Those projects are not an end in themselves. The move towards joint working does not end with them—quite the opposite. This is not just some passing politically correct fad that will go away. In future, joint working must underlie everything that we do. The concept of joint operations will dominate.
In the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere, we can see that the missions on which our armed forces will be engaged will require them to operate jointly. "Front Line First" showed us how joint working can both improve their effectiveness and cost us less. In future, therefore, our goal is to inject joint working from the cradle to the grave in military doctrine, in training and exercises, in operations, in the way in which we approach decisions on the projects on which we spend money, and in administration. In short, we think that we have to think and act jointly.
I want to conclude by saying a few general words about the services and again I apologise for speaking at some length—[Interruption.] I am getting on with it. I hope that our country still understands how proud it should be of our armed forces and of the way in which they carry out their duties, often in difficult circumstances and sometimes in dangerous conditions in this country and abroad. It is sometimes said that the services are reluctant to change—that is a favourite hobby-horse of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). That is not the impression that anyone receives who knows the services or works with them. I know of no other institution in Britain that has so readily and willingly adapted throughout its time to change. A journalist recently remarked that as so many other British institutions seem to be undergoing an almost total systems failure only the armed forces have maintained a high degree of credibility and a unity of purpose and performance. He went on to


say that he believed that their "can do" attitude seduced and impressed a country that, somehow too often feels that it cannot.
We live in a period of revolution—social, technological and political. That is extremely uncomfortable and it destabilises people. The organisations that survive revolution need to be imaginative, courageous, adaptable and flexible and need to bring in new ideas. Those are, above all, the qualities of the modern service man and woman. I hope that the House will listen to what I am saying because it is important.
In their standard of personal conduct and respect for the law, in their team work, cohesion and trust and in their highly developed sense of duty and obligation they are an institution which is wholly unique in this land and are a priceless and golden asset, for not only the defence of the realm but the vigorous promotion of Britain's national interest all over the world. I believe that their qualities are almost unique and it is important that our fellow citizens understand what makes up the traditions and institutions of the British armed forces rather than the complete caricature suggested by the hon. Member for Carlisle last night. They are so admired because of their comradeship, team spirit, loyalty and true but never jingoistic patriotism. The emotional, intellectual and moral qualities—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: No I will not.
The emotional, intellectual and moral qualities which lead people to put their lives on the line are there for all to see on almost every occasion one cares to choose.
What I think sets the services apart from all the other institutions in the land is the general exceptional qualities of its leadership. I know that the hon. Member for Carlisle finds those qualities offensive. We are lucky with the young men and women whom we are able to recruit, but they would be largely ineffective were it not for the exceptional standards of leadership that the forces have retained.
Potential officers in all three services are trained to be fit, resilient and inspirational young leaders who will accept discipline and danger, discomfort and separation and who can lead in peace and, more importantly, in adversity with true professionalism and a real understanding of and care for those whom they command.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: No I will not.
I am confident that at all levels and all ranks the services will continue to produce such men and women and I am sure that they will learn, as did their parents and grandparents, that at some time in their career they may have to depend on their colleagues and comrades for their very survival. Above all, they will develop a willingness to do things that are wholly contrary to every natural instinct because of a binding and, in modern terms, an almost magical unselfish commitment to others as well as to their families, their regiments, their queen and their country.
The Conservative Government have kept British forces strong. Their reputation is unmatched by any other armed forces in the world. They are truly formidable and it is our solemn commitment to the nation that we must and

will stay strong because Conservatives know that there is no other way to defend and preserve British ideals and the British way of life.
In our armed forces we are blessed with men and women of a quality not found in any other institution in the land today. What is more, we know that the nation values them for what they are and not for what the Labour party would want them to be. The Government will maintain armed forces which will continue to be highly trained, highly motivated and at the forefront of technology. This year's statement on the defence estimates explains how we will achieve that.
We will all listen with care and interest to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) as he sets out how the Labour party would set about the defence of the realm. The nation knows that the defence of the realm can never be safe in the Labour party's hands, old or new, and I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government's motion and to reject out of hand the Labour amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Before I call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman I must apologise because at the beginning of the debate I failed to inform the House of the fact that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on the speeches of Back Bench Members between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I recognise the importance of this debate to many hon. Friends and Conservative Members. I know that many of them want to participate and I will do my best to ensure that Front Bench spokesmen do not take up much more time.
I found the final part of the Minister's speech offensive. He tried to slur the reputation of the Labour party by suggesting that it is unpatriotic. That is unworthy of someone holding his office. In a quieter moment I think that the Minister will reflect on those comments and realise that they should not have been said during the debate.
Throughout its history the Labour party has supported the British armed forces—(Interruption.]

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Minister talked about round objects.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister finds it easy to speak from his position on the Front Bench. He should recognise that what he said is offensive to some and what he just said is offensive to many of those who have given their lives or who have made a contribution. Literally thousands or millions of those people will have friends who are Labour supporters and they will not believe that the Labour party is in any way unpatriotic. It was unworthy of the Minister and the House for him to make that comment.

Mr. Frank Cook: Would my hon. Friend care to reflect on the fact that at various times during his speech today the Minister appealed to the Opposition to join him in certain aspects while, at the same time, engaging in that rather cheap, silly and certainly over-simplified party political hacking which is best reserved for the annual Conservative conference? It is not only insulting but it is illogical when he chooses to seek enjoinment.

Mr. Fatchett: I agree totally with my hon. Friend, but I will move on.

Mr. Bill Walker: It would be nonsense for anyone anywhere to suggest that someone is unpatriotic simply because they support or vote for the Labour party. What must be addressed is which Government and which party look like doing the best by the armed forces. The record demonstrates clearly that the Conservatives are better.

Mr. Fatchett: It is rare for me to compliment the hon. Gentleman on a statesmanlike intervention. He set out the terms of genuine party political debate. We will argue that the record of the Labour party and of Labour in office refutes the allegations made. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) set out the debate in the right terms.
I should like to pay tribute to the forces and the role that they play. I join the Minister in thanking those involved in the commemorations for VE day and VJ day and I should like to remember all those who made sacrifices during the second world war. I agree that we must not just see those sacrifices in a vacuum. We must recognise that they were made for a political, purpose, which was to preserve freedom and democracy. While we enjoy freedom of speech in the House we must recognise that others made sacrifices so that we could have this debate today. The lesson for all of us is that we must be vigilant in our attempts to preserve and strengthen democracy. That is the lesson from this century.
Like the Minister I wish to thank the forces who are playing their part in 24 countries around the world. I shall not go on the Minister's Cook's tour and I have not had an opportunity to visit all those troops. However, we recognise the contribution that they are making. I share with the Minister his views on the prospects for peace in Northern Ireland and on the changing character and atmosphere of the Province. We hope that the peace process will continue.
There were constant references to Bosnia during yesterday's debate. I thank our troops for the contribution that they have made in that country. We all know that the issue of Bosnia has divided each side of the House and that great passions have been roused. Three key points came out of the references to Bosnia in the speeches of all my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members yesterday.
The first point is that without the military intervention of the United Nations and NATO, humanitarian relief for thousands of people in Bosnia would not have been secured. We are grateful for and proud of our country's contribution to that. Secondly, it is fair to argue that because of our intervention we have been able to prevent the fighting and war in parts of the former Yugoslavia from spreading to other parts. That is a success for which we must be grateful.
I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with the assertion that I am about to make on the third point, which opens up substantial political debate. As politicians, we have a responsibility to define the role that UN and NATO troops must play in every theatre. The difficulty with the operation in Bosnia is that we have not always been clear about whether we have been talking about a peacekeeping or a peacemaking role. When we look back at the history of Bosnia in a few years' time, I suspect that the lesson we will learn is that we should have been clear in our own minds about exactly what we wanted the troops to do and

then back that politically. On many occasions we have given way to pressure, which has meant that the political message and the political direction have not always been consistent.
I give the Minister of State an opportunity to do something that he should have done earlier—to withdraw his churlish remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). My hon. Friend has a proud record of helping to bring relief to many people in Bosnia, and doing it in a way that no other hon. Member has done. It was very wrong of the Minister to refer to my hon. Friend as someone who made a nuisance of himself yesterday on the question of Bosnia. The Minister should look at my hon. Friend's speech yesterday and withdraw his remarks. I give him the opportunity to apologise to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Soames: I have absolutely no intention of apologising to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I have to tell the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that he has confused peacemaking with peace enforcing—a mere detail, but one that he might wish to consider.
I must point out that I have already paid a handsome tribute to the hon. Member for East Lothian. He surely cannot want me to do so every five minutes. I said that he had done well in Bosnia. I am not prepared to enter into an argument across the House about who said what about whom because I am aware that he was stuck in a difficult position in Bosnia. However, that does not alter the fact that he did very well. If I was him, I would stop banging on about it.

Mr. Fatchett: I gave the Minister an opportunity to make a gracious apology. He failed to do so and the House will have noted that.
The key point about the Bosnian experience and, indeed, many of the other experiences to which the Minister referred, is that they have occurred under the auspices of either NATO or the UN. There has been co-operation, there has been dual command and there have been joint operations. In his speech yesterday, the Secretary of State referred 11 times to the need for international co-operation; 11 times he spoke about the benefit of international institutions and countries working together to meet the need of common security.
Anyone who had the opportunity to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool last week must have wondered what happened during the week since then. Yesterday, it was a speech was written by civil servants but delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. Last week, it was a speech written by an immature young person and then delivered to a Conservative party conference. The right hon. Gentleman made crude appeals to nationalism and jingoism to improve his personal political standing in the Conservative party.
We are aware of the argument that is taking place. Indeed, we saw it earlier. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the man who really did challenge for the leadership, the man who dared—not the man who quoted the SAS, but the man who dared to challenge the leadership—came here this afternoon to represent one wing of the Conservative party and to try to claim the ground from the Secretary of State on the question of who is the real champion of the right in the Tory party. Is not it the truth that Opposition Members


have a greater regard for our armed forces and our national security? We will not allow internal party arguments or internal party ambitions to deflect us from important national issues.
The debate and division in the Tory party was out in the open last night. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) made an important speech which is worth quoting. In referring to the Secretary of State's Blackpool speech, he said:
1 … feel that that was not the time for him … to make some of the comments that he made … The fact remains that the people whom he criticised are our allies within NATO and the Western European Union."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 109.]
It is not just the hon. Member for Wyre who has criticised the Defence Secretary. Criticism has also come from Lord Gilmour, someone who should not be dismissed lightly by Conservative Members. In the past, he has spoken on defence issues from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Conservative party. What did he say about the Defence Secretary's Blackpool speech in last Friday's Evening Standard? He said:
No prominent member of a mainstream political party in any other western European country could have made Portillo's speech. Even the Italian neo-Fascists might have shrunk from it.
The point is that the Secretary of State debased his office in his speech last week.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard German Ministers speaking? If he has, he may wish to withdraw what he has said. He should listen to what I have to say, which will be very anti-German with regard to the Eurofighter 2000. I do not think that that is anti-European; I think that it is defending British interests.

Mr. Fatchett: The point that I made is valid. The Secretary of State's speech, with its cheap jingoism, was very damaging to this country.

Mr. Soames: When are we going to hear about defence?

Mr. Fatchett: The opportunity to hear about defence was at the Tory party conference last week, but the Secretary of State did not utter one word about defence—it was a bid for the leadership of a faction within the Conservative party.
Why is the Secretary of State's Blackpool speech relevant? When the Minister talks about our armed forces, he should realise why it is relevant. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Wyre said that he had received many letters and he quoted one from an ex-service man. I shall quote it again. He wrote:
As a former regular officer with a son about to depart for Bosnia early next year either wearing a UN beret or as part of a NATO formation, I found his"—
the Secretary of State's—
remarks about 'soldiers willing to die for Britain but not for Brussels' particularly offensive."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 109.]
Those are telling and important words. It was not just that parent, an ex-soldier, who found the Secretary of State's remarks offensive; many people throughout the country and many serving troops found them offensive.
Of course, the Minister of State tried to defend his boss. Some of us had the advantage of watching the news last week and seeing a clip of the hon. Gentleman's face when his boss was speaking. It was that picture from the

defence debate that I will take away from the Conservative party conference. I will be fair to the Minister: the look on his face was one of utter disgust. His reaction to his boss's speech was similar—

Mr. Soames: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: Let me finish this point. His reaction to his boss's speech was similar to the reaction that he would have if a bad meal were placed in front of him. He did not like it. He did not like the smell of it. He did not like the feel of it. He did not like the texture of it. Of course, he is ambitious enough to clap at the right points. What he did not do, but what the Prime Minister did, was to lead the clapping for what was one of the most disgraceful jingoistic speeches that we have had at a party political conference.

Mr. Soames: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell the House when he intends to give up this childish and idiotic rant. He has been speaking for 15 minutes. He has not said one word about anything to do with defence, or the future of defence, or any of the big issues facing this country, and has done nothing other than indulge in a really pathetic and hopeless attack on my right hon. Friend. Will he please let us—and as he thinks the wider country—know what the Labour party is going to do? Will he share with us his vision about the defence of the realm and how he proposes to bring forward the many reforms which we understand that the Labour party has in mind? Or does he not have any visions? Is that the humbug that he is hiding behind?

Mr. Fatchett: We seem to have hit a raw nerve. It is quite clearly the case that the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in condemning his boss's speech, but finds it difficult to do so—and I can understand the reasons for that.
Let me cite one final quotation about the Secretary of State's speech. It was probably the most important of all. I have been unfair to the Secretary of State for Defence. There were people at the conference who applauded the speech and one former Cabinet Minister praised it. Sadly, he has left the Chamber, but he made an intervention earlier. The right hon. Member for Wokingham praised the speech and I shall use his words. He referred to the Secretary of State's speech in the following terms:
They were lighthearted remarks, rabble-rousing remarks, which worked on the day.
That is praise indeed from the real leader of the right of the Tory party. It is interesting that the only praise that could be given to a Defence Secretary's contribution to an annual party conference is that it worked on the day and it was rabble-rousing.
What is important, what yesterday's debate showed and what the Secretary of State's speech showed is a great difference between the reality of the defence agenda and that speech in Blackpool. In speech after speech yesterday one crucial point was made: for the past 50 years or more, Britain's defence has been best served in partnership with others on the basis of common security.
It is against that background that Britain and other countries will take decisions about the future of NATO, its role and its membership, about our relations with Russia, and about the future of the Western European Union. Taking decisions in that way is not about


abandoning Britain's interests. Nobody wants to do that. On the contrary, it is about furthering British interests and security in partnership with others.
If I could offer some advice to the Secretary of State for Defence, it would be this: his contributions to the debates about the future of Europe and our defence and common security will be much better received if he relates to the important agenda implicit in yesterday's debate—the debates about the common security of Europe, the future of NATO, and the WEU—rather than, as he did at Blackpool, spend time trying to knock down futile, false propositions. That is simply a waste of time.
There is an important debate; there is an important agenda. What was clear yesterday from everyone who spoke in the debate was that we need to define Britain's defence interests very obviously in co-operation and collaboration with others. The fact that we are having a false debate about any other proposition amazes me and it is a total waste of time. We should not be going in that direction.
When the Minister pretends, as the Secretary of State tried to do again yesterday, that Labour would somehow give up our sovereignty on defence, it is no more than a cheap party-political pretence which bears no reality to what the party has said and bears no reality to the way in which political decisions are made.

Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about co-operation—he is finally beginning to get into a little of the substance—would he tell the House which of the candidate countries for NATO he favours in the next stage of NATO enlargement?

Mr. Fatchett: We have always made it clear—

Mr. Soames: Which countries?

Mr. Fatchett: Oh come on. If the Minister would listen to the answer he might be able to make a more sensible contribution. [Interruption.] The crucial decision should not be made with an atlas and a catalogue at this stage, but by looking at the criteria and the way in which that decision will be taken. The criteria concern common security, our ability to contribute to that common security, our ability to preserve and safeguard democracy in the countries which may become NATO members, the ability of those countries to contribute in military terms and their ability to make that contribution economically. Those are all clear criteria which the Labour party has set out. It would be against—

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall in a minute. Again, it will be on the criteria that we shall make a judgment about future NATO membership. I realise that the Minister knows too much and that he does not have to listen—we recognise that from his speech—but if he did listen, he would find out that we have clearly set out our criteria and we are very keen to ensure that the debate is about democracy, economic expansion and human rights in eastern European countries. That debate must be sensitive to the requirements of Russia and the needs of the people of the

eastern European countries. We have made that argument many times. If the Minister wants to reduce that to a list, it shows that he has very little grasp of his office.

Mr. Hardy: Since the Minister is interested in the list of countries, would my hon. Friend care to put to him the following question? Does the Minister fully endorse the view of Her Majesty's Government in welcoming into associate membership and involvement in the WEU a whole list of east European countries which sought that relationship to achieve security guarantees that neither this country nor any other European country can properly fulfil at the present time?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raises a point with which I am sure the Minister will deal in his reply. My hon. Friend is also right about the article V guarantees. Indeed, we have made that point clearly in the criteria that we have set out.
In the discussion about co-operation and national interest, there is one area in which the Secretary of State could speak on behalf of the British people and British interests more clearly and define his contribution in that direction. I speak of the importance of the defence industries and those who work in them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spent a good deal of time on this issue yesterday and I shall certainly not delay the House by repeating those points. The key elements, however, which we all recognise and understand, are that the industries are important in their technology, skills and in the contribution that they make to Britain's industrial base.
We want to know from the Minister whether it is true that the Secretary of State prefers an option to buy off the shelf. If that is true, it means that, almost invariably, we will buy American to the cost of British industry. Is there no strategic view coming from the Ministry of the British defence industrial base interest? Will the Minister give us some indication tonight of whether there will be at some point a clear statement that the off-the-shelf approach is not the Government's approach and that they recognise their responsibility towards the defence industries?
We also know that there will be more European collaboration in procurement. How will we secure the UK interest in that? How will we manage those projects? Again, there have been no comments from Ministers and no clear policy statements, yet key British interests are involved.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement—he is new to his job and I congratulate him on his appointment—cannot have been helped by the Secretary of State's speech last week. In considering European collaboration projects, how will British industrial interest be secured against a background of other European countries feeling that they have been subjected to personal criticism by the Secretary of State for Defence? How are we to defend British jobs, companies, technology and skills? Those are the key issues to which the Minister must relate, yet there is no strategy on it at all. Yesterday, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces scoffed at Labour's idea for seeking ways in which we could diversify from military into civilian production. Is not it a shame that on yet another issue of such importance—Britain's industrial base—the Government have no ideas?
The notion that everything can be left to the marketplace is comfortable to state but it is irrelevant to the needs of the British people. We need a strategy. No


one in the Labour party is saying that the conversion process will be easy, but, if we do not try to make that move and to preserve the skills, the technology and the scientific base, we shall lose important national assets that should not be wasted.
Our stance on diversification is ringing a chord not only with the companies involved but with the people who work in the industry. Again, we have the right agenda. The Minister said yesterday that there was a need to be forward looking, but he has not dealt with the important issue of Britain's industrial base.
The Minister of State spoke yesterday of the need to manage the Ministry of Defence's resources better. In his speech last week, the Secretary of State said that it was his task to convert waste into weapons. There is certainly a great deal of waste in the MOD which could be converted. A great deal of taxpayers' money could be saved by better management. Let us consider the waste permitted by the Government over the past few months.
The privatisation of the MOD housing scheme, which I believe was the brainchild of the Minister of State, cost the taxpayer £5 million in consultancy fees alone. That was money wasted. Some £6.7 million was spent on consultants at Devonport and Rosyth, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, there is still uncertainty at the bases and no decision has yet been taken about them. I hope that such matters will be cleared up in tonight's winding-up speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields yesterday quoted the National Audit Office report which shows that all major projects are delayed and overspent. The Government need to take seriously the notion of turning waste into weapons. They need to save on the waste which is costing taxpayers so much and which is a further indictment of the Government's record.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields also mentioned yesterday that there was much criticism of our European partners in virtually all the speeches at last week's Conservative party conference. However, when there is an opportunity legitimately to criticise our European partners the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are quiet. The nation recognises their silence on and tacit support for the French nuclear tests. I put it on record again that we condemn those tests. Our position is absolutely clear, and we speak for the people of this country and for the people of Europe and elsewhere.
In his winding-up speech yesterday, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces let slip a comment that worried one or two of his colleagues. He said:
Not only have we not gone too far but there have been and will be further cuts and attempts to keep down the cost of the way in which we do our business."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]
It seemed to my colleagues and me, and to some Tory Members, that the Minister was flagging up more defence cuts. It is no wonder that concern had been expressed in some earlier interventions. The Minister must tell us tonight whether what we suspect is true.
The reason why I raise the issue now is that whenever we argue for a defence review—one that will take account of the substantially changing world to which the Minister referred and of Britain's commitments in Europe and to the United Nations, and one which will examine overstretch in our forces—the Government criticise us and say that such a review would merely cause uncertainty. Once again, that shows the Government's arrogance. They

believe, although the British public certainly do not, that they have got it right every time. The reality is that they are not prepared to face the consequences of a new world and new decisions, which are what make the prospect of a defence review so exciting.
The Government are introducing cuts by stealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke yesterday about the number of armed forces personnel. The defence estimates show that in the past decade alone, at 1993–94 prices, there was a 30 per cent. cut in defence spending. That may have been necessary—we are not arguing about that—but the cuts were made by a Government who have not had the courage to face their own Back Benchers or the armed forces and talk logically about Britain's defence needs and foreign policy requirements. In this, as in so many other spheres, Labour would promise an opportunity to consider the changing world to which the Minister referred, an opportunity to match Britain's role in the world with Britain's defence requirements, an opportunity for us to have a defence base driven by foreign policy requirements and a real assessment of Britain's needs in the world. That is what is exciting about a defence review.
Despite the cheap patriotism that Ministers like to use, the fact is that, because the Labour party is thinking about these issues and knows the way forward for Britain's defence and foreign policy, the people of this country trust us. That is why we shall form the next Government and take, the crucial decisions about Britain's future defence needs.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I begin by paying tribute to the previous Secretary of State for Defence, who has now moved to the Foreign Office, on his three difficult years in that post. He handled the difficulties extremely well and fought the armed forces' corner. In his absence, I welcome the new Secretary of State to his first defence estimates debate.
In my three and a half years as a Member of Parliament, I think that I have attended all our defence debates. As I said, it has been an enormously difficult period. I hope that there will be no further turbulence but instead more certainty and, dare I say, more stability. We need a period of positive progress and I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement of the joint rapid deployment force and the Tomahawk and other equipment procurement.
In looking forward to stability, we should be honest about the unhappiness of the past three to four years, which was characterised by the plethora of volunteers for redundancy, as mentioned yesterday by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). We should now encourage a reinstatement of the previous high morale in our forces and fulfil our commitments to them. The Prime Minister promised last year that there would be no further cuts in the armed forces or in defence spending, and that promise was also made by the previous Secretary of State. I would welcome further reassurance tonight that there will be no further cuts in funding other than those already proposed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Real-terms reductions have been planned and I accept them but now is the time to reiterate that there will be no further cuts.
I believe that the cuts went too far. For example, I do not think that there are enough infantry battalions in the Army. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State agreed and reprieved two battalions a year ago. I still believe that there are not enough but I trust that I shall be proved wrong. Similarly, I am not happy about decisions such as that to scrap the royal yacht but I do not think that it materially affects the ability of the armed forces to fight a war.
The results of the uncertainty and unhappiness of the past three to four years remain, which is why I stress that we must restore the high standards of which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has spoken. For instance, yesterday the Secretary of State mentioned recruiting. Quotas for recruiting are now adequate, but unfortunately it is difficult to get recruits to come forward. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces acknowledged yesterday that the number of recruits for the infantry, the artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps is inadequate, and it is time that we stressed that fact and encouraged further recruitment by all means including, if necessary, pay rises above the rate of inflation.
Last week, there were various articles in the press that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to dismiss later, suggesting that Gurkhas are to take over the role of British troops. I mean no criticism of Gurkhas, who are excellent soldiers in their own way, and have a history of loyalty and service to the British Crown, when I say that it is not a happy state of affairs to have non-British soldiers, indeed mercenaries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not denigrate the Gurkhas in any way when I say that they are troops paid to fight for us. As I have already said, they are excellent troops. I pay tribute to them, but they are not as flexible as British troops—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

Mr. Robathan: The idea that Gurkhas can do everything that British troops can do has been acknowledged for many years as unlikely. For instance, Gurkhas are not fighting—or rather, not on the streets—in Northern Ireland, because it is not deemed sensible to place them there. They are not as flexible and they cannot replace British troops. I am sure that the Minister will address that problem, and I hope that he will be able to reassure me.
One cause of uncertainty hanging over the United Kingdom's armed forces is the Bett report, which was mentioned yesterday.

Mr. Bill Walker: Before my hon. Friend deals with the Bett report will he tell me whether he, unlike the Opposition Members who were laughing at him, has direct experience of military activity and of leading troops of different kinds? We know that they have none.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The generalisation made in that intervention is insulting to the House—

Mr. Menzies Campbell: And quite untrue.

Mr. Cook: And, as my colleague says, it is totally untrue. I ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to withdraw the implication of his statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. There was nothing out of order in what the hon. Member for Tayside, North said.

Mr. Robathan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have served in the armed forces as, I know, have many other hon. Gentlemen. Indeed, I have served with the Gurkhas within the past five years, and they are excellent troops—

Mr. Mackinlay: In their own way.

Mr. Robathan: They are super troops and I love them dearly. However, they are not British-speaking troops, as is painfully obvious. I do not know why the Opposition should find it difficult to accept that. They should look up the word "mercenary" in the English dictionary and discover what it means. The Gurkhas are paid to serve the British Crown, just as the excellent Swiss troops still guard the Pope.
One cause of uncertainty that hangs over the United Kingdom armed forces is the Bett report. It has been mentioned before, and I do not intend to speak in great depth about it. However, I emphasise the fact that the armed forces are different. They are not Tesco, British Telecom or any other business; there can be no profit.
We can encourage efficiency—which I am sure hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would wish to see—but the ultimate test is in war. So far as I know, there are few complaints about the armed forces not being efficient. Certainly they could be more efficient, but they are well respected. I quoted the Minister of State's grandfather to him last February, so I shall not do so again, but those words should be marked well.
Sir Michael Bett's report, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said so much, considered the armed forces, especially the Army, in peacetime. That is not appropriate, because the armed forces exist for war. The hierarchical rank structure might seem odd in British Telecom, but it does not seem odd in a battle. I fear that the Bett report may strike at the very heart of the ethos, the fraternity, the spirit and the comradeship in the armed forces. It is not necessarily appropriate for a civilian business man to try to organise an army. Certainly BT is not more respected than the British armed forces. So I trust that Ministers will consider the consequences of the Bett report carefully before introducing its recommendations.
Many people wish to force the armed forces to be like the rest of society, and to allow homosexuals to be service personnel. That is a rather contentious subject, upon which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has commented in the past. My own view is that such a change would turn common sense on its head in a desire to be politically correct. Are we to sacrifice the efficient defence of the United Kingdom for the sake of political correctness? Political correctness may not be peddled on the Government side of the House, but it is peddled by the Opposition.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend may care to consider something before he makes his point. I shall seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief. My hon. Friend should


consider how much it costs the Ministry of Defence to hound out perfectly good decent soldiers, not for reasons of misconduct during their military service but for being rather than for doing. My hon. Friend should be careful.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend has his own particular point to make, and I look forward to hearing it later. I served in the Army for 15 years and met some people whom I suspected were latently homosexual. There were also one or two sad cases, which I greatly regretted, involving courts martial—for actions, not for "being", as my hon. Friend describes it.
It may surprise some people to know that most soldiers were extremely tolerant. They were not—to use a rather contrived modern term—homophobic. Indeed, they were quite happy serving with whoever, and they certainly regretted the courts martial, as I did. But they did not want to share a shower or a lavatory, a trench or a bed, with somebody who might be interested in them. Women have separate facilities, and it is not so unreasonable to say that men, too, should have their privacy respected in different facilities.
There are quite enough difficulties with women when sex rears its ugly head, as has been well reported in the press, and I do not think that one needs to exacerbate the situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go and have a cold shower."] I notice one or two Members laughing. Will they tell us whether it is official Labour party policy to allow homosexuality? I believe that the hon. Member for South Shields said that it was not. Or did he say that it was? I cannot quite remember.
It would not improve the armed forces to allow homosexuality. I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the other Ministers to defy the judges and political correctness, even if the sensibilities of a few people are offended.
The major operation of the moment is taking place in Bosnia. God willing, we may now have a lasting peace there, in which case I congratulate all involved, including President Clinton and the British Government. However, fighting continues in north-west Bosnia, and it is a peculiar state of affairs, about which many hon. Members are slightly unhappy, when United Kingdom soldiers and aircraft support, or by their actions seem to support, the territorial ambitions of Croatia. Not many hon. Members would say that President Tudjman leads a democratic government.
My view is that all three sides in Bosnia are culpable, and all three have committed atrocities, but for now I shall concentrate on Croatia and say that 18 months ago its forces were bombarding Mostar and killing Bosnian Muslim Government troops, and civilians. Now the regular Croatian army is fighting in Bosnia—a campaign aided, albeit perhaps unwittingly, by NATO and RAF soldiers and aircraft. That is not a conflict that we understand, and it is not a conflict of which we should be part.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman certainly does not understand it.

Mr. Robathan: I suspect that I understand it rather better than the hon. Gentleman who made that rather foolish intervention.
About two weeks ago, while I was abroad, I heard on the BBC World Service that the United Nations had referred to a Bosnian Government action as "treacherous".

I think that I am right in saying that. Should we really risk the lives of our service men in such an action? I think not, and I acknowledge that I was wrong to applaud the decision to send troops.
Our other major operation is in Northern Ireland. Last week, an old flax mill in west Belfast that was my home for five months was knocked down. I am delighted that the battalion based there has been withdrawn and I hope that troop numbers continue to be reduced, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. Having soldiers who are not gainfully employed hanging around in cramped barracks is likely to cause difficulties rather than assist in the peaceful maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland. We must keep our internal security training, but the sooner the Northern Ireland garrison is returned to pre-1969 levels, the better. Battalions can always return quickly if they are properly trained.
I congratulate the Government on their Northern Ireland policy and on reducing force levels, especially since there seems to be a great deal of opposition from some people in Northern Ireland who, I suggest, are wrong in the matter. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have jobs which anybody would be proud of, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was an honour to open yesterday's debate. I look forward to his being Secretary of State for Defence for the foreseeable future, and I know that while he is there, he will defend the best interests of our armed forces to ensure that they remain the envy of the world.

Mr. Tony Benn: With others, I am intending to vote against the White Paper tonight and I want to give the electors of Chesterfield, the House and my colleagues the reasons for that. I am in fundamental disagreement with the defence and foreign policies of the Government, and I would like to devote my comments to that.
I was in the House during the big arms programme of 1951, and I heard Aneurin Bevan—who resigned from the Government on that occasion and was no supporter of the Soviet system—say that he did not believe that the Soviet Union ever intended to invade western Europe. I agree with that. I do not believe that the Soviet Union had either the will or the capacity to invade western Germany, move into France, take over Italy and then come to London. But enormous sums of money were spent on building up resistance to the Soviet Union. The real reason for that was very simple; if we pretended that we were about to be invaded by the Soviet Union, anyone who criticised the Government could be described as an agent of the KGB or of the Kremlin. It was a political campaign.
At any rate, NATO was built up to deal with that matter, and that included the build-up of nuclear weapons to which I shall refer in a minute. Looking at the difficulties the Russian army had in Chechnya, I wonder whether the expenditure undertaken by NATO was at all appropriate. I hear that Willy Claes, the Secretary-General of NATO—he may be, for all I know, about to be replaced for other reasons—has announced that now that communism is over, Islam is the great enemy of the west.
There is a picture of the crusades in St. Stephen's Hall, and we must be careful that we do not fall into the habit of believing that we now need all these weapons to protect ourselves from Islam. A holy war or, "jihad", would be


very dangerous, although I understand that many Governments find it necessary to have a foreign enemy. Nor do I believe that the Bosnian Serbs justify our defence budget.
My second point in that context is that we cannot afford the present level of weapons. I have had the national defence budget divided by the population to help me to understand the matter, and it appears that every family of four is spending £40 a week on weapons. The Government should knock on any door and ask whether the occupants feel more threatened by an attack from the Bosnian Serbs or by the possibility that they might fall ill without medical treatment being available. The veterans who fought on D-day and who go to hospital now are told, "We are afraid that it is not worth treating you, Sergeant Bloggs. You are 75 and it is not worth giving you a new hip." That is where the threat to security comes from.
We should look at Japan and Germany, countries which we have not allowed to re-arm. Why have they done so well? Why are they selling us cameras and cars when we are supplying military equipment through the arms trade to other countries? While I cannot anticipate what the next Government will do, I do not believe that any incoming Government, faced with pressure to improve services, will be able to say that the defence budget is sacrosanct. It cannot be sacrosanct. We are about to send 15,000 people to Yugoslavia as part of a peacekeeping force. If we can house 15,000 British soldiers in Yugoslavia, why can we not house the people who live in cardboard boxes in London? Our priorities will have to be considered in that context.
My third point is—from the point of view of public deception—the most important of all. We have not had for many years—since atomic bombs could be dropped by Vulcan bombers—an independent British nuclear deterrent. I speak with some authority, as I was the Minister in charge of Aldermaston and I know what I am talking about. When the Americans supplied us with nuclear weapons, we allowed them to control our security services and they allowed us to pretend that we had an independent deterrent.
We do not have such a deterrent, and that is what Zircon was all about. We could not fire our so-called "independent deterrent" without the Americans switching on their satellite system. It has been a miracle of misrepresentation, that 10 general elections have been fought on the question of whether we should retain that which we have never had. I am disappointed that the Labour party has suddenly come around to accepting the need for a weapon with nine times the killing power of Polaris while denouncing the French for testing their weapons. I strongly doubt whether the computer testing of our weapons will give the reliability that is alleged. On those grounds, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government tonight. I think that an awful lot of people will share my view, although I do not know how many will join me.
I come now to the Government's foreign policy, which is more important, because all defence policy has to be related to the Government's foreign policy objectives. What has happened—I thought that someone must mention this—is that NATO is replacing the UN. We had

a great celebration of the UN in the summer, and I remember the excitement I felt as a young pilot coming back from the war when I read, in the charter of the UN:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".
I believed in that, but I now find that NATO has taken over. The basic principle of the UN was the power of unanimity, but the Russians have now been pushed to one side as the Americans, following the end of the cold war, have taken control of the Security Council.
In the case of Iraq, a so-called "alliance" or coalition of partners was supposed to have been involved in the operation, but of course it was American dominated. The subject of sanctions has been raised, and 500,000 children under five have died in Iraq because of sanctions in the past five years, according to figures produced by international aid agencies. Twice as many children under five have died in Iraq as died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I cannot support such a policy, and I do not support it.
Reference has been made to Bosnia, and I tried—together with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—to get the House recalled to discuss the matter. We could not get the House recalled, although the decision to participate in the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs was taken in direct contravention of what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said during the summer, which was, "We do not intend to get involved in the war."
I wish to spend a moment on the matter, because there is a lot of background detail. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Turks for many centuries, and was then a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. During the war, the Croats had the fascist Ustashi regime, which is now being recognised again by the Croatian Government. The German Government broke up Yugoslavia, and Herr Genscher—the former German foreign minister—said that the greatest achievement in that period of the German foreign office was to break up Yugoslavia. Why? Because the new Germany wants to extend its power in the Balkans.
As Croatia and Bosnia were allowed to leave Yugoslavia, an argument could be made—although I am not in favour of any such disintegration—for the Bosnian Serbs to be allowed to leave. Why should Bosnia be allowed to leave, but not the Bosnian Serbs? We have gone in to provide humanitarian aid, and I support that. I have said time and again in the House, and I shall say it again, that all that we can do in a civil war is provide an embargo of weapons, humanitarian aid and a peace table. It is a civil war in Bosnia, and we must not pretend that the war is an act of international aggression. Instead of providing an embargo, aid and a peace table, we have taken part in the most murderous assault by NATO, with which the Minister is proud to associate himself. That assault brought the Bosnian Serbs to the peace table. But if the Bosnian Government are not satisfied, they may say that unless NATO continues the bombing, they will not come to the table. NATO has become an instrument of the Bosnian Government.
I believe that the story will be different in the end. I think that Croatia will take over Bosnia, and that the Bosnian Serbs will probably move in with Serbia. We are seeing a partition of Yugoslavia between Croatia and Serbia, and the pretence that we are there to defend Bosnia's Muslim multi-cultural Government is quite untrue.
I shall give one or two other reasons why I shall vote against the Government, although I do not want to take up too much time. The arms trade is the most criminal trade in the world. It is worse than terrorism because it is sponsored by Governments. It is worse than AIDS because it is sponsored by Governments. As the House knows, Britain has supplied weapons, as has America to a greater extent, to both sides in most conflicts, just as at the time of the crusades the European arms manufacturers supplied weapons to Saladin and Richard I. That came out at a recent seminar in Cairo.
The arms trade uses conflict to test weapons. Then when the weapons are used, they send in peacekeepers and say, "Have a ceasefire." The ceasefire allows arms manufacturers to find out which weapons worked best. That is what happened in the Falklands war. The Exocet proved to be so successful that it is now widely sold.
If we look at the world seriously—I try to do so—we find that the way in which international finance causes countries to cut their public services to satisfy the demands of international financiers creates poverty. Poverty is one of the greatest causes of war, as is unemployment. There were 6 million unemployed in Germany before the last world war. That brought Hitler to power. People who are unemployed are frightened and look for a strong leader. A strong leader, or would-be strong leader, always finds foreign enemies. Hitler found the Jews. The Secretary of State found all foreigners. Anyone who has read "Mein Kampf'—as I did in my teens—and the life of Mussolini could not mistake the roots of the ideas that came out of the Conservative conference. If we do not deal with the problem of world poverty, we should not be surprised if it leads to conflict. If it leads to conflict, that means more weapons. If it means more weapons, it means less money for development. So the policy is wholly misplaced.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be called to speak. He will talk about the cancellation of third world debt, which I support. Do not tell me that it is not possible to diversify from weapons production. At the end of the war, within 18 months we moved 4 million or 6 million people from producing weapons into producing houses. I remember when the Beaufighters stopped coming out of the factory in Bristol. About eight weeks later prefabricated houses started coming out of the factory. Do not tell me that we cannot diversify. Of course we can, if we plan so to do.
We should also seek to reduce our defence expenditure. I cannot see any reason why there are British troops in Germany. I hope that the peace process will result in the withdrawal of all British troops from Ireland. The purpose of the peace process must surely be that.
I have put my arguments without making any reference to the Ministers who have spoken because I do not believe that our debates are improved by turning to the level of abuse that we have seen. I said that yesterday in my tribute to Lord Home and I say it again. The issues that face Britain are formidable. It is not possible to have law and order without social justice. It is not possible to have world peace without international justice. It is not possible to have either while we devote so much money to the weapons of war and neglect the real threat to people's security, which is that they do not have a home, a job, education or health or they do not have dignity when they are old.
Throughout the world, the gap between rich and poor is widening. There are 1,300,000,000 people in the world without a clean water supply. Half a million women die every year in childbirth for lack of proper resources and 35,000 babies die every day from poverty-related diseases. When will the country and the Parliament face those questions? If we go on thinking that a few more weapons or a few more soldiers will solve the problems, we will make worse the very problems that we should besolving.

Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The House knows of my interests, and particularly my Royal Air Force interests. That is one reason why I am wearing my tie today. I notice that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is wearing his tie. I welcome that because, as another member of the Volunteer Reserve, I too wear my tie with pride.
I assure the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that he is not the only Member in the House who remembers 1951. Some of us remember it vividly. There was another war going on at the time, called the Korean war. The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked it when he talked about the need in 1951 to improve the capability of our armed forces. He was right to say that, when the war ended, we thought that war was over. We all rejoiced, and the Americans went home. The United States military left the United Kingdom and left the bases. It was not until 1948 and the problems in Berlin referred to as the Berlin airlift that the United States returned to the United Kingdom.
In 1951, we had to spend more money because the Royal Air Force, among other services, had to train new people to take on the tasks. I remember vividly how the training regime in the RAF had to be stepped up again to train new pilots and air crew, because we thought that the Chinese intervention in Korea would lead to a much greater war. That was the reason for the planning at that time.
The House will note that I do not make the criticism that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield makes of the Labour Government. The truth was that we faced an extremely tortuous and difficult situation. No one really knew what was going to happen in Korea with any certainty. The fact that the Chinese could have become much more involved was one reason why we had to have adequate air crew available to meet the envisaged possible needs. The same was true for the rest of the services.
Of course, we all know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is the real voice of Labour. It is not the new Labour that we keep hearing about. His views on nuclear weapons are of long standing. He has never changed them. That is to his great credit. When one cares deeply about something, one should stand by it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does. I do not doubt the integrity of his position—I just disagree with it. That is an entirely different matter.
When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield touched on the break-up of Yugoslavia, I found myself agreeing with him. It was Germany's precipitous recognition of Croatia that brought about the break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany took that decision without consulting its European allies.
Is it anti-European to make that comment? Am I being nasty? Am I being hideous? Of course not. If one is talking among friends, one must tell the truth as one understands it. I said in an intervention earlier that I would be making some comments about Germany. I did not intend making a comment about Germany in relation to Croatia, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield gave me that opportunity. He and I are in agreement.
I am also in agreement with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield—this may get those on my Front Bench worried—that regimes and politicians under stress at home will try to find foreign enemies. I am concerned about the unstable situation in the former Soviet Union and parts of the Islamic world, where there is undoubtedly a proliferation of weapons. In the former Soviet Union in particular, there is a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and some nuclear capability will exist in Islamic countries in the foreseeable future. So it is wise—I put it no higher than that—to retain a capable deterrent.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield, like myself, spent quite some time flying aircraft for the Royal Air Force. He will recollect that, if we had had sufficient Spitfires and Hurricanes available, we might have been capable of deterring Hitler in 1938. They were the deterrent capability at that time. The Germans believed that their Luftwaffe was invincible. They believed that it could take them anywhere they wanted to go. If we had had television and all the pundits that we have today, we would never have fought the battle of Britain, because they would have told us that we could not possibly have won.

Mr. Benn: Galtieri attacked a nuclear power: Britain. Saddam Hussein attacked three nuclear powers: America, Britain and France. Where was the deterrent then?

Mr. Walker: They never attempted to use a nuclear capability against nuclear powers. I drew attention to Spitfires and Hurricanes because, had we had a deterrent capability in the south Atlantic—had we had the aircraft carrier squadron that Dennis Healey withdrew—we would probably have had a deterrent capability. [Interruption.] I say that as a passing reference. Dennis Healey withdrew the aircraft carrier squadron from the south Atlantic. It was part of the east of Suez policy at that time. Some of us remember what actually happened because we were there. Those who were involved cannot be told the fairy tales that we sometimes hear today.

Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard.

Mr. Hardy: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall the fact that the iron lady removed HMS Endurance just before the Argentine invasion of the Falkland islands, and was warned by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the consequence of that withdrawal? Is that not more apposite than a reference to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Healey?

Mr. Walker: It was an unhelpful act, which contributed to that. But if we could have deployed an aircraft carrier squadron, carrying aircraft that a proper

aircraft carrier would carry with an over-the-horizon radar capability, Galtieri would undoubtedly not have taken the chance. I simply draw attention to that point.
May I return to the matter of foreign enemies? Given the unstable regimes and conditions in countries such as the former Soviet Union and Islam, it is wise for us to retain a nuclear capability and a conventional deterrent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made some scathing comments about the Bett report. I agree with Ministers to a degree. While aspects of the Bett report may be helpful, many other aspects want throwing out, as they have nothing to do with a military capability, leadership, or what is required under active service conditions.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the reserve forces, and I endorse what he said. We must now look seriously at beefing up our reserves. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is sitting behind me, because I am about to say something which he and I have been trying to get the Government to agree to for years: the Royal Air Force Reserve should have a flying capability. An opportunity could arise if we are to deploy the rapid reaction force. A reserve squadron could and should have done that job.
I welcome the ceasefire agreement, such as it is, reached in Bosnia. Like everyone in the House, I pay credit to the professionalism, quality and courage of our Army, Navy and Air Force. The House will not be surprised that I wish to draw attention in particular to the Royal Air Force and its pivotal role in Bosnia, particularly in reaching the current agreement. Its contribution, which was made in harmony with the United States and our other NATO partners, was pivotal in producing those results. The operational task of the Jaguars and Harriers in delivering laser-guided bombs is an example of professional flying and great capability. The tankers and early warning aircraft, which also played a role, are often undervalued, but very necessary in combat conditions.
I also draw attention to the critical and vital part in the military jigsaw played by the transport fleet, which rarely gets credit for what it does. I am always amused when people talk to me about buying foreign aircraft. What short memories they have. How could we ever have won the war without the Dakota—the DC3, for those who do not know what it is? We should not forget the remarkable and often dangerous sorties carried out by the Chinook helicopter crews, particularly those attached to 24 Air Mobile Force.
Last but not least—sadly, it is often overlooked—we must recognise the vital top-cover role of the Tornado F3s. Other NATO air forces were unable to take on that task, as they could not provide top cover at night. The role that the RAF's F3 crews and aircraft carried out with such distinction should be acknowledged.
We should also remember the contribution of the ground crews and staff of Logistics Command. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have often wondered what "Front Line First" is. It is uncomfortable to be in the front line if one does not have the ammunition required to carry out one's task, so the work of Logistics Command was very important. Its staff often worked long hours, with frequent absences from their home base. I have received letters, as have other hon. Members, about the concerns of their wives. I simply say that they are right to be concerned and to contact their Members of Parliament.
On the replacement aircraft and replacement programme, I want first to look at maritime patrol aircraft. The Nimrod has been, and still is, a super aircraft in that role. It has done a remarkable job, and is one of the most popular aircraft in the Royal Air Force. Air crew love the Nimrod. I make a plea this afternoon for a thoughtful and considered debate to evaluate and properly assess the respective types under consideration to replace the Nimrod. I do not want next year's decision to be pre-empted.
I make that plea because I have no wish to see a repeat of the public and high-profile campaigns that took place during the Hercules replacement programme. Those did nothing for the candidates and little to make the work force affected any happier, particularly as many of the scare stories circulating at that time have been found to be overstated. They caused concern and made many people in the industry feel insecure. It does not help to tell people that their jobs are at risk because of something that may happen in five or 10 years' time. I hope that we shall have an in-depth debate, but not lots of scare stories.
The Eurofighter 2000 is critical to the future requirements of the Royal Air Force. I deplore German attempts to delay the programme and obtain what I regard as an unfair share of the construction work. The Germans have deliberately tried to delay the programme because their entry-into-service date differs from that of the Royal Air Force. Moreover, they have reduced the number of aircraft which they originally committed themselves to purchasing. The only country that has kept to its original commitment is the United Kingdom. As we are buying the lion's share of the aircraft, it is only right and proper that British factories should have the lion's share of the work.
I find some of the comments made by German politicians particularly nauseating. Am I allowed to say that, Madam Deputy Speaker? Am I being anti-European or anti our allies? It is the job of German politicians to suit their own needs and ends, but, as a British politician, it is right that I should criticise them, especially as Britain is honouring its commitments on the Eurofighter 2000. If the United Kingdom is to have a design and construction capability in the future, the Eurofighter 2000 programme is vital. Therefore, we are honouring our commitment; the Germans are not—to name a name, Volker Rühe.
In an earlier intervention, I asked Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen if they recalled any European politicians making comments that I might judge to be anti-European. I repeat the name: Volker Rühe. He was saying what he judged would appeal to the German electorate and, more importantly, to his party's supporters. It was all right for him to do that; perfectly in order. After all, he is a good European. I am not a good European.
Let me remind the House that some of us remember what being good Europeans meant. As many of us remember it on the Government side as on the Opposition side. Loyalty, chivalry and the other qualities that go with being in the military do not belong to any particular individual or party. Britain has those qualities in abundance across all sections of society. We were good Europeans twice this century.
I recently went to a conference with politicians from Europe and other parts of the world. The Speaker of the Belgian Parliament was making comments about the British not being very good Europeans. I said, "Excuse me, you are from Belgium, that wee country between

Germany and France. Have you ever visited the war graves? If you do, you will find Macdonalds, McGregors, Campbells and Frasers and, if you look carefully, you will find a few Walkers as well. You say we are not good Europeans. We gave you your freedom with our blood. That is the kind of good Europeans we are."
The Eurofighter 2000 is important to the United Kingdom. I do not have to remind the House that the Belgians would not give us the ammunition we required during the Gulf war. People talk about what is required to be a good European. I believe that the blood of my relatives is sufficient evidence of what being a good European is.
I come now to a subject about which I care deeply—this will be no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister—the cadet forces. Again I have to declare an interest, because I am the honorary president of the Air Cadet Gliding Organisation, which is a voluntary organisation.
During defence costs studies, the volunteer officers, staff and parents of the air cadets were exposed to many months of uncertainties. A 50 per cent. cut in the budget was originally proposed. I thank my right hon. and hon Friends on the Front Bench, and their predecessors, for their support for the cadet forces and for recognising their responsibilities in that respect. Without their support, the uncertainty would not have been removed.
We were relieved when we heard what we thought were the decisions of the defence costs study, only to find that there is something called "Defence in the Public Eye" rumbling around the corridors of Whitehall. I understand that proposals—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note this—that involve air and other cadets being required to raise more funding for themselves are being considered. In real terms, that means that air cadets would have to raise more than the £3 million that they already raise each year by their own efforts.
The adults who give up their time to run the cadets do so largely because they have specific knowledge and skills to impart. In my experience, they do not have specific knowledge or skills in fund-raising. That is not what they are there for. They would find themselves in competition with other good causes, many of which are experiencing difficulty in raising funds.
The proposal is wrong-headed and unwise: our cadet forces exist because the volunteer adults, officers and instructors are prepared to give of their time to do the tasks they have accepted. If we ask them to become fund raisers as well, I judge that we will lose many of our adults, which we can ill afford. I hope that Ministers will engage their minds as they did during the latter part of "Front Line First", when they came up with some helpful answers, for which I thank them.
I have again to declare an interest in considering the rationalisation of the defence estate. The Air Cadet Gliding Organisation has 28 units scattered throughout the country with both powered and conventional gliders. They require airfields from which to operate. With the reduction of Royal Air Force airfields, and with some airfields being transferred to the Army and other services, it is important that we have some meaningful arrangement about how volunteer units are going to be deployed.
I am concerned about northern England, where—it may interest some hon. Members from northern England that I commanded a volunteer unit at Dishforth many years ago—the volunteer unit at Catterick may have difficulties.


Can the Minister give me an assurance that consideration will be given to the needs of air cadets, and especially the volunteer gliding schools, so that the voice of the air cadets will be heard during the rationalisation? Once the airfields have gone, it will be too late to try to find somewhere else; that is what happened to the unit at Dishforth, which closed 21 years ago and has not reopened. That is a plea from the heart.
The volunteer gliding schools are close to my heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) told the House that he had given 18 years of service; I have given close on 40 years of volunteer service. In my time as a pilot and instructor, one of the things that gave me the greatest joy was seeing 16 or 17-year-olds going off on their first solo flights. It gave them an uplift that one has to see to understand. It is part of character development. It is a real challenge; if they make a mistake they could easily kill themselves. Such youngsters are never likely to steal a car for kicks, because they have had the thrills, excitement and challenges. That is what sending them solo achieves. That is why airfields are critical at a time when we hear so often of the troubles of young people.
The House knows also of my interest in the scouts. I believe that the scouts and cadet forces contribute massively to the well-being of our young people, and we must recognise that.
I hope that Opposition Members will not feel that I am making my plea this evening because the cadet forces are military organisations; it is the good that the youngsters do for the community afterwards that pays back the nation. More important, it is easier to keep good kids good than to make bad kids good, and much less expensive. That is why I believe that the air, Army and sea cadets, supported as they are by the Ministry of Defence, are a massive contribution to the well-being of our people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has decided on a limit of 10 minutes for speeches between the hours of 7 and 9.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I am grateful to be chosen to speak while there are still shop stewards from the naval building yards of Yarrow, Barrow and Vosper here to listen to the debate. I want specifically to raise with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement the procurement of the type 23 frigates, the batch 2 Trafalgar submarines and the landing platform docks. I want to raise with him not simply the question whether those orders should be placed, but the timing of the orders.
I accept, as all of us do, that, in the past, much defence procurement was far too cosy. I believe, however, that it has now become, in many ways, far too rigorous, and that the Ministry of Defence is not taking into account the full enormity of its influence on the suppliers as, effectively, a monopoly purchaser when there are far fewer orders, both in this country and for export purposes.
The Ministry needs to recognise more than it does at the moment that the shipyards need a flow of work to ensure that they retain the vital skills that will enable them

not only to meet Ministry requirements at present and in the immediate future, but to tender for export contracts now and in the future. It is not reasonable for the Ministry of Defence to postpone the placing of orders and to expect privately owned yards to retain full work forces on the understanding that an order might arrive at some time in the future.
There has, of course, to be competition for tenders, but if the tenders are not being awarded timeously, it is not reasonable to expect the employers to retain substantial work forces when there is no work for those people to undertake.
The Ministry must enter a much better partnership with the private sector shipyards to ensure that capacity is retained. If capacity is lost, there is no guarantee that we shall be able to turn to the French, to the Germans, to the Italians or to the Spanish in future and ask them to build ships to our requirements or to our time scale. If the capacity is lost, it will never return. The orders must be placed to ensure that there is a work flow, rather than placed simply to suit the cash flow of the Ministry.
The Ministry of Defence and the Government have been correct to focus on the idea of national champions when going for export orders, and I very much welcome that. I hope, however, that, given that there is a recognition that so much is based on personal contact, especially in the third world and in the middle east, the Government will take into account the possibility—they may wish to concede no more than this—that there may be a change of Government.
I hope that the Government will ensure that there are Opposition Members who are well aware of the nature of the contracts and who have had the opportunity, in a bipartisan way with the Government, to form links with possible suppliers to ensure that the links are not broken in a way likely to be detrimental to British industry and to the possibility of winning foreign orders, if there is a change of Government.
I say that in an entirely non-partisan way, and I hope that the Government will accept the suggestion in that spirit. The proposal was put to me not by an Opposition Member, but by the shop stewards when we met them this morning. Obviously, many of them support us politically, but they recognise that a change of Government might result in loss of opportunity if there was disruption in the negotiation of contracts.
I hope that the Government recognise that export orders can best be gained on the backs of orders being placed by them. The credibility of yards often depends on their having obtained orders from their own Government. The sooner, therefore, that orders for type 23 frigates are placed, the better placed United Kingdom yards will be to bid seriously for overseas orders.
I hope that the Government recognise the needs of our industrial base. I am aware that I do not need to repeat my next point to the Minister. After all, we were told yesterday that
we have as a Minister of State for Defence Procurement a Member of Parliament who is probably the brightest person in the House, and someone of great competence."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 97.]
I do not know whether that was just an appeal for promotion from the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). I am sure, however, that these issues do not need to be repeated.
We want orders to be placed now, not simply to be rolled over because the Government want to create space in the public sector spending requirements for tax cuts. If yards close as a result of orders being postponed because the Government have sought to save money for tax cuts, the Tory party will truly be placing party before country, and placing short-term electoral needs before the defence of the country. I hope that the Government will consider that point seriously, and that they will move forward as quickly as possible to place orders, especially for the type 23 frigate.
I hope that the Minister will also be prepared to look seriously at whether our reduced civil shipping capacity is sufficient in terms of being able to call up from trade all the vessels that might be required in time of war to move the appropriate equipment overseas. There is a grave worry that the British mercantile marine is becoming so depleted that it will not have the capacity in time of war or in time of need to shift heavy equipment overseas, and that we shall be forced to depend on what can be taken in the spot market and what can be taken from allies—who may not be our allies in those circumstances. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that point.
The next issue is far more political. I, like many others, very much resent the way in which the Government have, today and on previous occasions, cast doubts on the Labour party's commitment to the defence of this country—as if, in some way, it was the preserve of the Conservative party. It is noticeable that there are two deserters from among the Ministers who were here when those statements were made. Given that the boundaries of their seats have been redrawn, they have chosen not to fight but to flee the field of battle and to seek pastures new—in one case successfully and in the other case, not yet successfully.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): On a purely personal point, the hon. Gentleman may like to confirm with his hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who is sitting here, that my seat has completely disappeared, most unfortunately. Luckily, I have been fortunate in being selected for another constituency.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although this is a fairly broad debate, it will not encompass constituency arrangements and rearrangements.

Mr. Davidson: The Minister's defence is very poor, given that the entire seat has probably not disappeared. Is he saying that there were no survivors whom he wished to continue to represent? Is he saying that there was nobody at all left? Have they all been decanted to the new constituency?

Mr. Fatchett: They are victims of friendly fire.

Mr. Davidson: Yes, perhaps they are. I rest my case on that matter. The "brightest man in the House" would no doubt beat me if it came to an exchange on the matter.
I hope that the Minister will take the points I have made into consideration, and that he will announce later today that he is placing an order for type 23 frigates as quickly as possible, so that Yarrow can get the order and keep its men in work.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: It gives me great and belated pleasure today to welcome the announcement on orders for the support helicopter, the Tomahawk missile and, above all, the attack helicopter for which many of my hon. Friends have been pressing for so long. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his predecessors promised, our armed forces are now among the best equipped in the world, to the benefit of our country, our service men and, of course, our defence industry, even if, sadly, we have not always provided the prime contractor.
I saw Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen squirm yesterday at the bizarre intervention by their new and raw recruit, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). Old Labour, which still believes that British defence policy revolves around what I have heard described as pay, pregnancy and poofs, may welcome him to its bosom, but, luckily, new Labour has sound men who are not shy of recognising that more than 400,000 jobs are dependent on our defence industry, which has an export value of no less than £5 billion and which makes up the largest export sector of United Kingdom manufactured goods.
I am proud to have in my constituency a distinguished company, Racal, which has proved its record throughout the world. It continues to lead the world in certain technologies, such as Racal Radio, which presently holds 25 to 30 per cent. of the tactical radio market outside the United States.
However, the defence industry faces increasing pressure at home and abroad from foreign competition. Its contribution to the United Kingdom's balance of payments, employment and skills base must never be underestimated. In that context, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces knows, I have long been concerned about the staffing levels of British embassies and the number of defence attachés, which is small in comparison with the United States and France. France has now overtaken us to become the second leader in the field.
I have therefore been pushing for an enhanced role for defence attachés which involves the closest possible co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that the Government will stick to the yardstick of satisfactory access to the host nation which also involves the right rank structure. I hope that senior serving officers will be used in such roles so that they can talk to Governments at the right sort of level in order to promote British industry.
The latest "Statement on the Defence Estimates" has another cosy, comforting subtitle, "Stable Forces in a Strong Britain". The snag is that, by definition, the armed services are needed primarily to maintain or create stability elsewhere, particularly when British interests are at stake.
Stability has hardly been a well-known feature of service life through the ages. It is not expected. But after three major reviews in three years, it is high time for a period free at least from extra turbulence. I am sure that the House will want to protect the quality of life of service men and women and their families who put up with so much disruption.
I believe from my continuing links with the military—I declare an interest as a reserve officer—that there is an increasing and worrying trend outside the forces to equate life in the armed forces with civilian jobs. The distinction is in that very sentence. A job can never be the same as a way of life and there are considerable dangers in regarding the services as a business to be managed rather than led. We want our armed forces to be run not by managers but by leaders—people with flair and initiative. Unless we attract and, above all, retain good-quality recruits, the fine reputation of our troops worldwide will be prejudiced, and the very qualities that we so admire—their efficiency, skill, bravery and, not least, their special brand of humour—will be less evident.
Service men endure long periods of training and often mundane and repetitive tasks offset by deployments to dangerous troublespots around the world at minimal notice. It takes a particular kind of person to cope with that and it was profoundly disappointing to hear the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday that the long-promised 24-month tour interval is yet to be achieved, despite the welcome reduction in tension in Northern Ireland.
In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that, even at a time of high unemployment, there is a marked shortfall in recruitment. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not only to be aware of the problem but to continue to emphasise and promote the variety and sort of challenges that soldiers relish—from higher formation training, which sadly has been curtailed recently, to training units in more than 20 countries spreading expertise and good will; from high intensity capability to humanitarian relief work.
Soldiers are very good at disguising their worries about change and its effects on their career prospects. No one expects operational stability, but the time is ripe for at least stability of funding after defence cuts which have resulted in expenditure falling below 3 per cent. of GDP.
I make no apology for concentrating on the human aspect of service life, because unless that is addressed our capability is reduced, and how well we are now using that capability. I welcome the significant British presence in the ACE rapid reaction corps and the announcement of the joint rapid deployment force. However, the mind boggles at what sounds like multi-hatting at a level never before experienced even by our own flexible and tolerant forces—national, NATO, UN and Western European Union roles no less. If rationalisation is needed anywhere, it is certainly needed there.
I share my right hon. Friend's resistance to the WEU's aspiration to be the defence arm of the European Union as well as the European pillar of NATO. Events in the Gulf and Bosnia have demonstrated yet again, firstly, the powerlessness of the United Nations, in the absence of a command structure, properly to respond to crises which blow up in this turbulent post-cold war era; secondly, the absurdity of the dual key arrangement in Bosnia, which paralysed NATO for months, undermining its authority, prolonging the conflict and costing many lives; and, lastly, the need for American commitment and leadership. As Winston Churchill once said, the United States will always do the right thing once it has exhausted all the possibilities. We must be thankful for that and the American role in NATO.
Let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continue to resist a defence union as firmly as we resist economic and monetary union. The time is not ripe, and may never be, for either. Close co-operation with other countries in common cause, of course, but, as one of the foremost powers for good in the world, we owe it to our service men and to our country to reject any constraints on pursuing our national interests as a sovereign state.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I must begin by explaining why this year's debate on the defence estimates is so important to me. It comes at the end of a year in which we have commemorated the 50th anniversary of the dreadful destructiveness of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki; a year in which we have also celebrated the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war in Europe and in south-east Asia. It also comes at a time when we have celebrated the 50th year since the birth of the United Nations.
If one puts this debate in an even wider context, it takes place at a time when we have supposedly turned our backs on the era of the cold war which so disfigured the way in which we saw other people in society; the common strands of interest and the common threats to our survival. It comes at the end of a year in which the world, or most of it, signed up to an indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty. It comes at the end of a summer in which there has been worldwide condemnation of the French nuclear testing. It is the first time that I have ever encountered a significant number of British people positively shopping for what they described as "non-nuclear" wines. It comes at the end of a week in which Professor Joseph Rotblat, the nuclear physicist, was awarded the Nobel prize for campaigning, throughout his life, for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
If one tries to locate all those huge events—the seismic shifts in public understanding and what is happening in the world—against the contents of the Government's "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", or the Minister's comments as the estimates have been presented to the House, it is almost impossible to detect that sense of seismic shift that has taken place. That missed opportunity in this year's debate is a matter of great sadness to me.
One can still see a change from last year. There is greater talk of the Government finding efficiency savings or streamlining, but there is no strategic rethink of what defence and common security are fundamentally about. I would argue that this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" makes us more rather than less insecure than we were last year. I want to set out the four reasons why I believe that and why I shall be voting against the estimates tonight.
The first reason relates to the nuclear vacuum in relation to Ministers' opening speeches. During the entire period of the Government's life they have recognised that they no longer have a sustainable argument about a nuclear deterrent. What they do have is a nuclear dependence. They are increasingly dependent upon a logic that is not only obsolete but extremely dangerous. It is an obsession beyond the dimensions of rational debate, and beyond any recognition of the huge costs of missed opportunities. These are both the costs involved in cutting


conventional defence services and the wider social and economic costs that society must bear as a result of the obsession with nuclear weapons.
I was greatly relieved by the comments of Field Marshal Lord Carver, who—putting his view in a very technical way—said, "The trouble with nuclear arms is that we do not know what the bloody hell they are for. We cannot use them independently; we can't even run them without the help of the USA. Indeed, no sane person would use them at all."
During the summer, in slightly more diplomatic terms, two more military experts expressed their views. Professor Sir Ronald Mason, who was the Government's chief scientific adviser between 1978 and 1983, said that it was fairly clear that we were "over-egging the pudding" in relation to the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons. He went on to argue that the cost of operating and refitting the Trident submarine would be between £40 billion and £50 billion during its lifetime, and that we could save £10 billion by not ordering the final Trident submarine—or the whole amount, if we mothballed the lot. The same argument was then put by Sir Nigel Bagnall, Chief of the Defence Staff between 1985 and 1989.
The House should remember the scale of those costs when discussing other decisions in regard to where savings are to be found—whether the subject is the defence estimates or other social and economic programmes. This makes Greenpeace's estimate that Trident would cost £33 billion during its lifetime seem positively modest.
For me, the problem with the nuclear weapons programme is that we still refuse to address the fact that such weapons are almost entirely irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict. Certainly they have been irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict in my lifetime. I suspect that they will be irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict during the lifetimes of my children or their children. We shall, however, continue to pay a huge price for the obsession with an obsolete system of defence. It is a distortion of our language that we still presume to speak of nuclear weapons as though they were part of a sensible defence and deterrence strategy, and I feel deeply ashamed of the fact that we do so in the House.
Beyond that psychological dependency, I have a second reason for voting against the estimates. The Government refuse point-blank to condemn French nuclear testing, at a time when the public are appalled and the international community is outraged. What have the Government done? Have they been outspoken in their condemnation of the French? No; they have been "out to lunch" on their indifference. I know that the Government are not used to speaking with the support of the majority of the British public, but I should have thought that, given that only 3 per cent. of the country's population supports the actions of the French, even Polly would have had the sense to take the kettle off this silent support. France's actions are internationally frowned on, and it is a source of despair that Britain remains silent when other countries have spoken out much more courageously.
Why are we doing this? I believe—and this is the third reason why I will vote against the estimates—that we are moving into a new era of Anglo-French co-operation in the development of the next generation of nuclear weapons. I say that with reference to documents that have already been made available to the House. According to the Defence Committee's second report on the progress of the Trident programme, the Ministry of Defence has been

talking actively with the Americans, and the French, on how to co-operate effectively in the use of …facilities
at the Atomic Weapons Establishment
as part and parcel of the business of exercising and maintaining proper stewardship of … nuclear weapons".
The report adds that
stronger links could usefully be forged with France who, with untested new warheads, are more anxious to test than are we, and who may indeed recommence doing so following the elections in 1995 unless suitable alternatives are available. Indeed, the UK may itself learn from this co-operation".
This year, in its eighth report, the Committee provided an update, saying:
Last year we urged greater co-operation with the US and France in non-nuclear testing. MoD reported on some technical discussions with the French on issues related to nuclear weapons stewardship such as hydrodynamic experiments and computer simulation. Progress has not been swift … Whilst Britain would want to retain a capability to test independently, an efficient use of resources may involve some specialisation … there may be considerable potential for the French and Americans to be invited to conduct work at Aldermaston which may go some way towards filling the void created by a CTBT"—
a comprehensive test ban treaty.
What is that void? It is spelt out on page 77 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates":
The United Kingdom's capability in nuclear warhead science and technology is principally vested in the Atomic Weapons Establishment … at Aldermaston".
Discussing a "streamlined technical programme", the statement says:
It would, however, also necessitate changes … in our ability to develop new warheads which may be required in the future. So, whereas in the past we have used a very small number of underground nuclear tests to provide a cost-effective means of maintaining capabilities, we are now looking to a further enhancement of 'above ground' experiments"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the 10 minutes are up.

Mr. Michael Brown: I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech. I want to pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and, in the short time available to me, to concentrate on the costs of the MOD's ban on homosexuals serving in the Army.
This is not a speech that I particularly want to make, and it is probably not a speech that many of my hon. Friends particularly want to hear, but it is a speech that I think needs to be made—if for no other reason, simply because Ministers ought to be aware of the financial costs of the current ban.
First, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), the Minister of State, for the positive and helpful way in which he has responded to representations that I have made for a number of months. I also thank him and the Ministry for agreeing to set up an internal review, in the light of the recent High Court judgment and the views of one of the judges. I hope that the review will be genuinely independent; I must say that I was a little concerned by some of the comments by one or two senior members of the armed forces that I read immediately after the announcement of it.
If the review is to inspire any confidence in the Select Committee that eventually considers its findings in the House during this year, it will need to be seen to be genuinely independent within the MOD. I would prefer a much wider review, but I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend for the action that he has taken.
I should like the ban to be rescinded. I do not think that we should wait for the High Court or the Appeal Court, for the review being set in hand by my hon. Friend, for the House to have to consider the Select Committee report or—worst of all—for the European Court. I believe that, in this day and age, the ban is morally wrong.
Nearly 300 people have been discharged from the armed services since 1990 for the crime of being gay. Almost all of them were discharged not because they committed any act of homosexuality while engaged in their duties, but simply for the crime of being gay. No one knew; they were shopped—I know all about that. They were shopped by newspapers, by jealous friends, by people outside who wanted to make trouble. Not once did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State doubt the courage of all those brave fighting men who fought in the Gulf war and in Bosnia.
The Minister of State might like to know that only a few weeks ago half a dozen airmen—four navigators and two pilots—were discharged. They had been serving this country, putting their lives on the line in Bosnia flying Tornados. We have heard repeatedly from Ministers and hon. Members in this debate about the great courage and the selfless acts of duty exhibited and performed by members of our armed forces in the defence of this country. But if some of them happen to be gay, even though they are not indulging in any gay practices—I agree that that would be unacceptable on active service—it is a different story. They are discharged simply for the crime of being gay. Three hundred of them have been discharged for that crime in the past five years.
Goodness knows how much all the investigations have cost, but I have an estimate that it takes one man investigating a regular soldier who is a suspected homosexual 34 days to complete his investigations on behalf of the special investigations branch; and the total cost of all investigations between 1990 and 1995 is estimated at £7 million.
These investigations are degrading, immoral and wholly unnecessary. While the current ban persists, a person found to be gay should at least be honourably discharged and not put through these degrading hoops.
The training costs of all these service personnel must be horrendous. I do not know what it costs to train a Tornado pilot or navigator, but it must be a great deal of money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, formerly the Chief Secretary, can ill afford to waste money training people to replace others who are perfectly good at their jobs. No Conservative Member doubts the bravery of those who serve in the armed forces. No one doubts that the half dozen men recently discharged from the RAF fought for their country and put their lives on the line.
Next come the legal costs of the cases currently before the High Court. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that, ultimately, if this House does not resolve the issue, these cases will end up in the European Court. I

suspect that all hon. Members know that that court will rule that this is discrimination, and we shall have to give way. I do not want the laws that we control to be made for us by the European Court, whose judgments usually involve average compensation for cases of this kind of about £50,000. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State, like the Chief Secretary, can do their own sums and realise that millions of pounds will be involved.
I tell the House: this ban will end. It may end if there is a Labour Government; but as there will not be a Labour Government it will end for other reasons. I do not want it ended under duress from the European Court. I want it ended because, as my hon. Friend said earlier, the Army is well capable of coping with change. Hundreds of homosexuals serve in today's Army; some of them are hunted down, others are not discovered. Most of them are congratulated by my hon. Friends; most have tributes paid to them by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby—but most of them are never known. If they are gay, they keep it quiet. They do nothing stupid and they serve their country with distinction. I find it perverse that someone like me can serve in Her Majesty's Government but not in Her Majesty's armed forces. That is ridiculous.

Mr. John Hutton: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on the powerful, impassioned and effective arguments that he adduced in support of his proposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), however, I want to confine my remarks primarily to procurement issues, not just as they affect my constituents—although they do—but more generally too.
I am concerned about how the Ministry of Defence handles major procurement policy matters. The MOD cannot continue to have it both ways. It cannot, on the one hand, say that it is its policy to retain an effective United Kingdom industrial capability and, at the same time, allow major procurement programmes to slide ever further behind schedule.
My hon. Friend the Member for Govan referred to the batch 2 Trafalgar class programme, which provides a vivid illustration of the problem. The batch 2 Trafalgar class submarine programme is nearly two and a half years behind schedule. The main reason for that delay, as the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), said in the Navy debate in February, is that the Government wanted to generate a competition for the prime contractorship of the programme, and paid GEC tens of millions of pounds to put together a rival bid for it.
I believe that the Government's policy is inconsistent and does not bear serious analysis. In addition to the industrial damage that the delay is likely to cause my constituency, and the shipbuilding industry in general, it is also legitimate to argue that there will probably be operational implications for the Royal Navy. The batch 2 Trafalgar class programme is designed to replace the aging Swiftsure class; many of those submarines are nearly 20 years old. The extra two and half years delay now built into the programme may have an effect on the Navy's ability to maintain an operational fleet of 12 strategic submarines nuclear, even though I understand that that is still Government policy. If possible, I should


like the Minister to reassure the House today that the delay will not have such an implication for the Royal Navy.
There can be no further delay or slippage in the ordering of the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. As I have said, the programme is already two and a half years behind. I do not expect the Minister to say today that he is about to order the submarines, but I do want him to say that there will be no further delay and that the Government will honour the timetable that they have proclaimed—to order the submarines, at the latest, by June 1996.
While we are on the subject of the Trafalgar programme, I would also like the Minister to assure my constituents who expect to build the submarines—I have no doubt that they will—that the Ministry will follow the practice that it has adopted for other major submarine building contracts such as Trident and release long-lead funding to allow some of the early steel work needed to construct the boats to begin at the earliest opportunity. That will not at a stroke close the gap opening up in VSEL's order book, but it will go a long way towards doing so.
In addition, therefore, to confirming the new timetable for the submarines, I want the Minister to confirm that the Government are considering issuing long-lead funding.
Secondly, we need to look seriously, in the context of major procurement contracts, at the Government's policy of maintaining competition as the principal driving force behind such contracts. It is becoming increasingly hard, especially at prime contractorship level, to secure competition for major programmes. As our industrial capability and our defence industrial base continues to shrink it will become ever harder to secure contracts exclusively through competitive tendering. In shipbuilding—my particular concern—competition does not apply to submarine construction, because VSEL is the only shipyard in the United Kingdom licensed to construct nuclear submarines. And we know that the Government no longer want to order any diesel-electric submarines.
Frankly, nor does competition apply any more to large ship construction either because VSEL, as the Government have acknowledged—this is a commonly known fact—is the only shipyard capable of building large vessels for the Royal Navy. Instead of forcing many shipyards to go through an abortive competitive tendering process which is entirely bogus, as we know was the case in relation to the batch 2 tendering programme, the Government should be much more upfront about the NAPNOC procedure—no acceptable price, no contract. That is a way of ensuring adequate value for money for taxpayers, which is a perfectly legitimate concern of Government.
On the issue of procurement generally, perhaps we could leave the final word and judgment on the Government's policy to the industry itself. On 21 March 1995, the Defence Manufacturers Association, in evidence to the Joint House of Commons Defence and Trade and Industry Select Committee, said:
Sadly, the MoD procurement policies have, until now, done little of a positive nature to support industry's chances of retaining a competitive edge.
I hope that the Government will give that view and comment from industry proper emphasis and consideration.
Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Govan referred to export promotion. I understand that the MOD estimates that the future UK naval shipbuilding requirement in the three remaining yards will be sufficient to support only 8.500 jobs in the UK shipbuilding industry. That is not enough to support even the existing reduced employment levels in the UK shipbuilding industry. Therefore, if we are to retain employment levels, it will he important for the British Government to get behind the UK shipbuilding industry and to support its export potential. The only way they can do that is to do what other European countries do: back effective winners. At the moment, however, it is not a policy of the British Government to back individual yards. Consequently, foreign orders are left to competition between yards. That does not happen in other European countries. The British Government need to get behind successful British yards and back winners in relation to export potential.
I am glad that the Government remain committed to the landing platform dock replacement programme because it will be essential if the policy of the Secretary of State for Defence for a rapid deployment force—his new initiative announced yesterday—is to be brought into being. Amphibiosity will be central to that. In turn, the LPDs are central to ensuring that amphibiosity.
The Government must make it clear again that they want to keep to the timetable for ordering the landing platform dock replacements. As I understand it, that should mean an award of contract at the end of this year.
I want to ask the Minister some direct questions about the landing platform helicopters. I understand that HMS Ocean was quite seriously damaged when launched earlier this month at the Kvaerner yard on the Clyde. How serious was that damage? Will it delay the commissioning of HMS Ocean and its coming into operation with the Navy? In particular, what implication might any further delay have for my constituents at VSEL who, under the contract to construct HMS Ocean, expect that ship to arrive in Barrow for fitting out early in the new year? Where will the work on HMS Ocean to repair that damage be undertaken? It needs to go into dry dock. Where will it go to have that work done?
The Upholders were referred to in speeches yesterday and today. The Minister will be aware that there are four Upholder classes. The entire fleet of Upholders is in my constituency awaiting the conclusion perhaps of an export agreement with the Canadian Government or some other purchaser. I hope that the Government will confirm that such negotiations are continuing to advance and that a prospect exists of an early agreement for a purchaser of the Upholder class to be found.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Before you took the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made a succinct and seriously responsible speech, an example commendably followed by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). Sad to say, however, the Labour party has somewhat damaged its laboriously pursued aspiration for credibility in defence with a breathlessly long—16 lines without a full stop—and incoherent amendment urging the Opposition not to approve the defence estimates today.
The Labour party then doubly damaged aspiration for credibility with the extremely quixotic intervention of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who


argued that Nye Bevan and others had no fear of the Soviet threat in 1951, an attitude not shared by Clem Attlee and an interpretation of history that is in total negation of the facts. Even from the perspective of that year, one could only have remembered what happened to Finland, the loss of the Karelia province and of the northern region to the Soviets, and the rape of the Baltic states in May 1940. The Soviet occupation of the eastern part of Poland was also part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Also before you came in, Madam Deputy Speaker, the debate was illuminated by the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, whose speeches are never knowingly understated and today was no exception. His ebullience and bravura might have obscured the real problems that the armed forces face, especially in terms of recruitment and retention, and above all of the future role of our troops in Bosnia as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation implementation force. Luckily, those problems are self-evident and were well discussed by my hon. Friends during the debate.
The Minister of State is very good at talking up the reality and his remarks remind me of those of the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who spoke with such pride about the United Kingdom punching above its weight—a phrase which, in military terms, candidly terrifies me. All I will say is that, mercifully, the "Front Line First" review has not gone as badly as I had feared, that the slogan—and I loathe slogans in defence matters—of "waste into weapons" is not misplaced, and that, by virtue of the savings in support, extremely important enhancements of our weapon systems and capabilities have been made.
The procurement in air and missile systems alone—more Chinook Mark IIs, the EH101 medium support helicopters, the Longbow Apaches, the C130 Js—will greatly enhance the mobility and flexibility of our armed forces, as will the submarine launch Tomahawk cruise missiles increase their reach and capability to strike.
I hope that there is sufficient leeway in our budgets for the vital procurement of a conventionally armed stand-off weapon for the Royal Air Force, a modern anti-armour weapon, the maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Nimrod and the Astor airborne stand-off radar system. We must therefore continue to attempt to save money and we have sectors in which important savings can be made.
It makes no sense that we should employ 11,903 German civilians to support our armed forces in Germany when bases in Britain are being closed such as Abingdon for the RAF, Chivenor, which is to reopen for the Royal Marines, Brawdy, which was closed but has been reopened for the Army, Finningley, Scampton and many others. The Royal Air Force can operate perfectly from home bases instead of from Germany and deploy rapidly to wherever it is needed.
The same argument applies to the Army. It is not even as if there are proper training grounds for our tanks in Germany. It is true that we are looking for some in Poland, but largely they have to exercise in Canada. There are 33,000 Army and RAF personnel in Germany. I understood their presence there during the cold war under the terms of the Brussels treaty, but it is now an anachronism and needs to be reviewed.
There are major savings to be made in procurement. The National Audit Office report on the Eurofighter programme needs careful study. We must never again involve ourselves in such a bureaucratic co-operative programme with an expensive management agency superimposed, a multiplicity of production lines, and so on. I trust that we will not make the same mistake for the new generation Horizon 2000 anti-aircraft frigate.
There is also the headquarters of the Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood which costs £400 million. There is also the £52 million that has gone down the drain to pay compensation to service women who became pregnant during their time in the armed forces and the risk that we may have to pay compensation to members of the armed forces who had to leave because they were homosexual. As the Chairman of the Special Select Committee dealing with the Armed Forces Bill during a previous Parliament, I must say that I profoundly disagree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) as, I suspect, do the chiefs of staff.
I can look at this only from a parent's point of view. Within their ranks the armed forces have many young people at a highly sensitive age when they are likely to be influenced by their superiors and I do not think that it is in any way appropriate for homosexuality to be condoned in the armed forces.
Our party needs to look resolutely to the future to present a defence programme which meets the needs into the next century. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said so eloquently yesterday, much more effective use should be made of the reserves of all three services. It is disturbing that the volunteer reserve element of all three services is reducing in size. With the reserve forces legislation, there will be an opportunity to revolutionise our use of reserve forces which will be extremely cost-effective.
We must improve the training of our armed forces rather than do it damage. I bitterly deplore the decision to sell off the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. I have suggested that it should be a tri-service cadet college to provide the discipline and grounding in science and military education that the regular officers of the future will need.
We must improve the mobility and flexibility of our armed forces. The joint rapid deployment force is a step in the right direction, but, in addition to the medium support helicopters and transports that we already have, we will need a strategic transport force. For my money that should be the McDonnell Douglas C17. We need the heavy lift as part of our capability to deploy the full range of our armed forces, including armoured fighting vehicles, rapidly to wherever they may be required. If our Government do that, they will have done well for the future.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Since the 10-minute limit on speeches still applies, I am sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in detail. I would have liked to have dealt in more detail with the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) so as to endorse, not for the first time, his call for consideration


to be given to young people. The Government have done enormous damage to young people over the past 15 years and those activities should not be allowed to continue.
I would have liked to have mentioned hardware at some length, but I shall restrict my remarks simply to asking for an update on the F3. One view needs to be put which may not have been mentioned before. If we buy the American alternative, it will be twin engined but with only one air crew. If the F3 replacement is to be used on long sorties with several air-to-air refuellings, there may be a disadvantage to moving from the pilot and navigator to simply pilot operation. That is a small point, but the Minister will be aware that for many years Finningley in south Yorkshire trained navigators and one would not wish to see them becoming redundant, along with many of the others who worked at Finningley.
My main concern is that the Government seem to be adopting a preposterous approach. We have heard about the strong defence, strong Britain. Everybody has mentioned the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Tory party conference. There was another speech in which a prospective Conservative candidate was able to boast that he employed people at 89p an hour. It is no wonder they applauded him and it is no wonder that the same people applauded what The Daily Telegraph called the "ill-judged rhetoric" of the Secretary of State.
Yesterday's speech from the Secretary of State was more muted and reasonable. It was less aggressive. Perhaps someone has had a word with him and persuaded him that the SAS are not only tough but intelligent. They may be better at French and Spanish than the Secretary of State. They are capable and intelligent people.
The Secretary of State clearly has a great deal to learn and I hope that he listens to the Minister of State, who is rather more familiar with the British armed forces. Perhaps the Minister might persuade the Secretary of State to visit some operational RAF stations to have a look at the squadron programme. We have heard about the 24-month question for Army postings overseas, but the Minister is well aware that many of the air crew and essential ground staff in the Royal Air Force would greatly welcome rather less frequent postings overseas.
I know that the postings are for only three or four months, but I know of people who have done six or seven tours in the past three and a half years. That may be attractive to single young men, but when service men are married with children, the burden on their wives is excessive. It may be one of the factors in a problem to which the House should attend—the morale of Her Majesty's forces.
The morale in the Royal Air Force is higher than the Government deserve, given the sacrifices that it has had to make because of overstretch. I have mentioned strong Britain, but since the Government took office we have dropped from sixth to 16th in the world prosperity league. However, our commitments remain the same and the Government still wish to stride the stage of world affairs. They still wish to occupy a place on the United Nations Security Council. They still wish to play a leading part in NATO.
The problem is that the economic capacity does not match the political appetite. At the moment, the burden of that overweening approach by Her Majesty's Government is borne by a shrinking number of service men and it is not fair. The burden on the men and women in the services and on their families is excessive. If the Secretary

of State wishes to take a tough line, let him take it with the Treasury to ensure that we are not placing too great a burden on our service men.
The Minister recognises how serious the burdens are. It cannot go on. We must match our commitments to our capacity or the Government will stand even more guilty of adopting a preposterous position.

Mr. Soames: Not for the first time in a defence debate the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the most serious problems that we face in running defence operations. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the Bett review which has been so maligned in the House in the past two days tried to square the circle by dealing with those matters in a formal way? I believe that Sir Michael Bett appreciated the difficulties.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister will forgive me, but I do not have time to refer to the Bett review. I want to make two more points, one of which it is extremely appropriate for me to mention.
I have been a member of the Western European Union for longer than anyone in the House and I have been heavily involved in the debates and committee work of that assembly for a long time. I recognise that it has, and must have, an important role in European defence. However, the Minister must understand that, as it stands, the Western European Union cannot fulfil the aspirations that both sides of the House have for it. It needs to be given a great deal more attention. I believe that the Council of Ministers has not yet given sufficient attention to the implications of the widening that has taken place over the past year. It is right to point out that, for all sorts of reasons, the Community is not capable of serving such a European role. Discussion must take place in a rather more mature way than has been the case in recent months. Britain cannot afford to be asked to punch more than its weight, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood reminded us.
The Government need to be rather more even handed. The taxpayer pays for defence. We all pay tax, regardless of the area of the country from which we come. However, the Yorkshire Post told us the other day, in a full and interesting report, about the closure of the RAF depot at Harrogate and the fact that the jobs had gone to Wyton in the Prime Minister's constituency. Also, the Army school at Harrogate is to be transferred to a southern coastal county. Many of us suspect that there is now a retreat of defence expenditure into Conservative political fastnesses—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it certainly looks like that. Perhaps I am wrong, but the Government need to deal with the growing suspicion that defence expenditure is being concentrated in areas of Conservative political strength.
The other cause for concern is the excessive eagerness of the Government to contract out. I intervened on the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the RAF debate on 4 May and asked whether he accepted that the RAF had to retain sufficient capacity to be an intelligent customer. He said that he entirely agreed with me. What evidence has there been since 4 May that the services—in particular the RAF, which has to maintain high technological capacity—are being given that capacity? The former Minister said that that was why the RAF was to maintain capacity at Sealand and St. Athan, but what evidence is there that the Government accept the


point that he made in the House several months ago? Is there not a real danger that the Government's commitment to dogma and privatisation is being taken too far?
This is an important matter because air crews must fly aircraft that have been serviced. They know that those who have trained in the RAF and are dedicated to the service are men of enormous technological skill. What guarantee has the House and the service that those skills will be retained and that the customer, the service and the taxpayer will continue to get value for money?
I have little faith that after 16 years the Government have demonstrated their fitness to maintain responsibility for the defence services. We need a change of heart and a more intelligent approach. The sooner we have a general election—which will at least save me from having to listen to Conservative dogma—the better.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is not often that I seek to speak in a debate on defence because I am one of those few hon. Members unlucky enough not to have a service base in my constituency—even though the towns of Hastings, Rye and Winchelsea were significant in the birth of the Royal Navy, as three of the original seven Cinque Port towns. If hon. Members want an explanation of why there were seven Cinque Port towns, I would have to explain that at some other time, as Madam Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order if I tried to do so now.
There is an active Territorial Army unit in my constituency, which has invited me to visit it soon. There is also an exceedingly large and enthusiastic group of service cadets. In this day and age, when so many people think that youth services are under threat, it is heartening to see such enthusiasm for the cadets in Hastings and Rye. Indeed, were it not for them and the TA, most of our moving Remembrance Sundays, and, this summer, VE and VJ days, would not have the significance that they have, given the emotional part that the forces play in our civic life.
One issue has recently come to my attention, although I am rather confused about it following the receipt of a letter this evening. I have just heard from some parents that the whole of the air training element of our local cadets is to be moved from RAF Manston, when it closes, to RAF Benson. Without making a plea for something to be done about the appalling condition of the roads in my constituency, I must point out that it takes at least four hours to get from Hastings to RAF Benson. Given the need for cadets to be in school, and the requirement that schools meet the high standards that we are now insisting on, it will be difficult to persuade schools to allow children to leave early so that they can get to RAF Benson and back in reasonable time. At weekends and during the school holidays, the facilities are used by organisations such as the Air Training Corps.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has told my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that a Bulldog is to be sent to RAF Manston so that the cadets can get some flying time. That is splendid, but only until RAF Manston is closed. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement could clarify the matter

so that I can assure the parents of the air cadets that they will have reasonable flying time. We have spent a great deal of time debating the need to ensure adequate recruitment to our forces, so we must remember that many recruits come from the cadets. If they are put off by the fact that they do not have the opportunities to go up in a plane, the RAF will suffer in the long term.
My constituency has more than those enthusiastic cadets. At the other end of the spectrum, the contribution that Hastings and Rye makes to our defence comes through exceedingly high-tech research facilities. One company, Computing Devices, was a key player in putting reconnaissance systems on the Tornados that were so successful in the Gulf war. Since then, technology has moved on at an ever-increasing pace. That company is now a world leader in digital battlefield mapping—so much so that the managing director recently led a presentation to the US Defense Secretary. We are at the forefront of technology in this highly important area of future effective reconnaissance.
One of the developments on which the company is making progress was used in the Gulf war and was effectively described by Frederick Forsyth in his novel about that war. I certainly could not better his description. Since then, there have been further developments. The key feature of the equipment is that from a very great height one can observe what is happening on a battlefield without—this might seem slightly silly—having to worry about the height of hills.
However, I understand that the Army is keen to develop its own digital mapping system. I am sure that 52 per cent. of the population will say that boys will be boys and boys will have their toys. Those of us who run household budgets know that the last thing to do is to allow those toys to put our budgets under pressure. Much of this debate has been about the pressure on budgets.
I have a vision of what the Army wants to do with its own digital mapping system. I can envisage an armoured personnel carrier or something of such size trundling out on to an open area which is not under attack and somehow putting up into the air all the kit that is required for observation on top of—perhaps—a telescopic line.
One of the key factors of such reconnaissance is that one needs a clear picture. If the wind blows, what happens to the quality of the picture from the top of that telescopic line? How high can the telescopic line go before it starts bending under the weight of the equipment at the top of it?
There are many questions to be asked, not all as simple and silly, but to me, the net effect could be that we are indulging in a potentially significant waste of public money. The quality of information coming from the aeroplanes involved in such surveillance is improving—I am sure—on a weekly basis and will instantaneously provide the Army with all the information that it needs without it having to develop its own form of battlefield digital mapping.
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that we will not see competitive research going on in an area in which we are already well ahead of the international field, especially as we are now emphasising. There is no point in wasting scarce public resources in duplicating, and duplicating inefficiently, research that is already going on.
I ask my hon. Friend again for reassurances that we will see progress, especially in negotiations with the Germans, to ensure that the Eurofighter goes into production and that the Germans' current demands for a higher percentage of the build to be allocated in Germany is resisted. Granting such a demand would, of course, take jobs from the UK and its defence industry when so much of the technical development and the excellence of the Eurofighter has indeed come from British companies and their brilliant research.
We have talked about a strong defence and a strong Britain. One of the messages that I have taken from this debate is that many people have not yet grasped that strong defence means high-tech defence. It is not necessarily the number of pairs of feet that can march behind the beat of the drum that matters, but ensuring that the armed forces have the best and highest level of equipment that can be developed to ensure that they are more efficient and more effective than the potential enemies that they may face—which in these hazardous days could be anywhere in the world.
I am glad for the sake of the companies in my constituency that we are, investing so heavily in high-quality research. Will the Minister assure me that we will continue to do so? Ensuring only that there are people to march to the beat of the drum is not the best way in which to ensure that we win a war.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) will forgive me if I do not specifically follow her remarks. I shall concentrate on two specific concerns: first, the future of defence staff training and secondly, the future of the magnificent and historic buildings in Greenwich, currently occupied by the Royal Naval college.
The two concerns are inextricably linked. Following the decision earlier this year to merge the three separate staff colleges into a single tri-service college at Camberley, we have witnessed the shocking and demeaning spectacle of a British Secretary of State for Defence hawking some of the country's finest buildings and one of its most historic sites around the world in search of a buyer. I entirely endorse the regrets expressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the proposed sale of the Royal Naval college.
We know that the Secretary of State is an ardent privatiser, but this proposed privatisation adds an entirely new dimension to what a former Conservative Prime Minister described disparagingly as "selling off the family silver". It is difficult to imagine any other country in the world possessing a complex of buildings of such quality and historical associations being prepared to sell off its national heritage in such a way—so much for the Secretary of State's absurd pretence in Blackpool last week to be standing up for British interests. "Do not mess with Britain", he might have said, but "would you like to make me an offer for one of our finest national monuments?"
The Secretary of State's action is all the more deplorable when one realises that he has a dual responsibility, not only as Secretary of State for Defence, but as sole trustee for the Greenwich hospital estate. It is worth summarising briefly what that involves.
Greenwich comprises a remarkable complex, including the Queen's house, the national maritime museum and the Royal Observatory, which are all managed by the national maritime museum. It includes the Dreadnought seaman's hospital and the Devonport nurses home, which are both now sadly empty—one has been empty for getting on for 10 years and is showing signs of serious neglect and decay. There are also the buildings occupied by the Royal Naval college, including the famous painted hall and chapel, the King Charles, the William and Mary and the Queen Anne's quarters, and the Pepys building and other associated buildings—one incidentally containing what I believe is the country's smallest nuclear reactor.
The very names of the buildings convey much of the history and significance of the site. The estate was originally a royal palace, in which both Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I were born, and was subsequently converted into a hospital and refuge for elderly and disabled seafarers—a foundation which celebrated its 300th anniversary last year. More recently, over the past 130 years, it has been a centre for naval training of the highest calibre, as all hon. Members who have visited the Royal Naval college will testify.
The site has been of fundamental significance to the Royal Navy for centuries. It was where Nelson's body lay in state after Trafalgar, and has also for centuries been associated with the development of navigational skills, presided over as it is by the observatory standing on the meridian line from which the whole world measures time.
The complex was built by the greatest names in British architecture: Inigo Jones, Christopher Wren, Webb, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh, to name just five. It has been described by, among others, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the previous Secretary of State for Health, as the British Versailles. One only has to pause to reflect on the likelihood of the French putting the palace of Versailles on the market to realise the enormity of what our Secretary of State is doing.
How did it come to this? A little over a year ago the Ministry of Defence decided to merge the three separate service colleges into a single tri-service college. There were essentially two candidates as sites to accommodate the new college: Greenwich, the home of the Royal Naval college and the Joint Service Defence college, and Camberley, the home of the Army staff college. The way in which the choice of the preferred site was made tells us—I am afraid—a great deal about how the government of this country is currently conducted.
As I highlighted in a debate on the Royal Navy on 16 February, the so-called consultation was characterised by obfuscation, secrecy, dubious and misleading figures, and tendentious interpretations, all designed to prove that Camberley was the best buy. The doubts that I expressed in the House, in correspondence with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and, indeed, in a meeting with him at the time, were brushed aside, and the Government confirmed their preference for Camberley. Interestingly, in the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about the political geography of defence procurement, the preferred site is located in Conservative-voting Surrey, rather than in Labour-voting south-east London.
We learn, however, from yesterday's edition of The Independent that the figures on which the decision was based have had to be revised. It said in The Independent:


Detailed studies into the cost of refurbishing the existing Army Staff College have disclosed that 'tens of millions of pounds' will be needed to carry out the work.
The cost is substantially more than predicted in initial studies, raising fears that savings might not be seen until well into the next century.
`There is a lot of teeth-sucking going on about the scale of the costs involved in the refurbishment of Camberley,' said a senior defence source.
Alternative sites to Camberley are now under consideration to see whether greater savings can be made. And there are grave doubts whether the 1997 deadline for forming the tri-service college can now be met.
In response to my earlier intervention, I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had apparently not seen this report but that he has undertaken to look into it. I hope that he will, as a matter of urgency, and inform the House whether the claim was made in the defence estimates that substantial financial savings will be made by the concentration on one site and that the closure of the four existing colleges in 1997 can still be achieved.
I must also ask the Minister to recall that in his correspondence with me dated 10 February this year he said:
you are right to conclude that the principal reason for the difference in cost between the Greenwich and Camberley options is the need for significantly greater capital expenditure in the early years at Greenwich.
If the report in The Independent yesterday is correct and the costs involved in establishing the tri-service college at Camberley are proving to be substantially greater than previously estimated, it must call into question the validity of the assumptions which led the Government to decide in favour of Camberley rather than Greenwich. If, as The Independent implies, alternative sites are now being considered, I trust that Greenwich is among them.
In the meantime, Greenwich has been handed by the Secretary of State to the estate agents to be disposed of. Even worse has been the revelation that the Secretary of State intends to introduce measures in the forthcoming armed forces Bill to amend the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 which governs the use of the Greenwich site. Section 7 makes it clear that the site can be used
for the purposes of the naval service or any department of Her Majesty's Government".
That remit would, of course, permit continuing use of the site by the Navy or the Ministry of Defence or any public service use—for example, heritage or educational activities sponsored by the relevant Government Department. It would not permit a private use of the premises and that, I fear, is the reason why the Secretary of State is seeking to change the legislation.
After the fiasco of county hall being flogged to a Japanese corporation that has left the building empty and appears incapable of using it other than as an aquarium, we have every reason to feel real anxiety about the intentions of the Secretary of State for Defence. Not surprisingly his actions have prompted a national outcry. People, not only in Greenwich but throughout Britain, have made it clear beyond doubt that they do not want our magnificent architectural and historic heritage treated in that way. What should be done?
The first priority must be a further examination of the cost and feasibility of using the Greenwich site for the tri-service college. I hope that the Minister will tell us a little more about the latest estimates of the cost of the Camberley option or, if he cannot, that he will return to the House and do so in the near future.
Secondly, the Secretary of State should immediately withdraw Greenwich from the estate agents' brochures and make it clear that the site will remain in use for appropriate public services within the terms of section 7 of the 1869 Act. If it is not possible to continue its use as a tri-service college, another appropriate public service use—either for heritage purposes, possibly run by the national maritime museum, or educational purposes—would clearly be appropriate.
The way in which the Secretary of State who, as I stressed, has a dual responsibility in this matter, has treated the Royal Naval college site in Greenwich over the past year has been deplorable but, unlike county hall, it has at least not yet been sold. The Secretary of State therefore has the opportunity to repair the damage and act in the national interest. I hope that we shall hear—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I wish to refer to some of the issues raised earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). In the year of the 50th anniversary of the use of atomic weapons against Japan and the year in which the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been extended, I make no apology for wanting to speak about Trident and nuclear disarmament.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been extended this year but that should not be a cause for complacency about the future. Nor is it any guarantee for the future. Some countries that have not signed the treaty almost certainly have nuclear weapons or nuclear capability—Israel, Pakistan and probably India.
The difficulty is that there is a fundamental contradiction in the United Kingdom's defence policy. We try to convince would-be nuclear proliferators that nuclear weapons are not an effective way for them to guarantee their security. In fact, we go further and suggest that nuclear weapons are not a legitimate way for them to protect their national security because those other nations cannot possibly be trusted with nuclear weapons. At the same time, however, we retain and extend our own nuclear capability. As long as we insist on the importance to us of nuclear capability we do nothing but strengthen other people's perception of possible gains to them in becoming nuclear powers, especially when they know from experience that being a non-nuclear power is no guarantee that threats will not be used.
North Korea is a case in point. I hold no brief for North Korea. None of us would wish that state to have nuclear capability. Since the 1950s, the United States had maintained tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea. They were removed in 1992 but in 1994 the United States Senate was urging their reintroduction into South Korea. What are the North Koreans expected to do in that situation? How are they expected to react? That contradiction in US policy has been matched precisely by the contradictions in the United Kingdom's policy.
One simple but serious question has been asked a number of times in this debate but has been answered very dismissively as if there were no real question to be answered. That question is, what is Trident for? Is it for use in war? If so, where and in what circumstances might the United Kingdom use it? I can accept that there may be some logic in arguing that there are circumstances in which we would have to use Trident. I might not agree with that point of view, but there is an element of logic in it. However, the argument usually used is one of deterrence and the need to deter an aggressor. It is suggested that we have to be aware of the possibility of unstable regimes obtaining nuclear weapons. The trouble is that such an argument is merely an acceptance that proliferation will occur and is inevitable.
We would be much better off focusing on how to stop proliferation and how much more secure we would then be in the long term. I am sure that if proliferation occurs, sooner or later so will the use of nuclear weapons. The biggest danger of all is that proliferation will eventually lead to one or other, or both, the protagonists in a regional war having nuclear capability. There is certainly no record over the past 50 years that the theory of deterrence works in stopping regional wars.
We have now reached a point from which, over the next few years, there will either be significant moves towards the progressive removal of weapons of mass destruction or an inexorable proliferation. The question that we should be asking ourselves is how do we, in our defence policy, help to move that process one way or the other.
If we are serious about using Trident in moves towards disarmament—perhaps in multilateral negotiations—what are the best ways of going about it? Is Trident to be a bargaining counter'? There are two possible ways in which the United Kingdom might be involved in disarmament negotiations—as a participant in trading off, which is always a part of such negotiations, or as a broker in some sense. Is there a serious possibility that Trident—for all the massive destructive power in just one Trident submarine it is still only a tiny fraction of the weaponry in the United States and Russia—would carry real weight as a trade off or bargaining counter? What weight would we carry with Trident in those negotiations? I can see no possibility of our agreeing to reduce the Trident capability. After all, we have only four submarines when they are all in operation. At some point, even in that scenario, we would face the decision of going for all or nothing.
We should seriously consider the real alternative, which is to become the first major ex-nuclear power, with the moral weight that that would carry, and the ability to act as a broker that would come with it. We have seen in recent peace negotiations examples of the way in which non-aligned nations can become involved in those negotiations and act as brokers. Norway's role with regard to the middle east is an obvious case in point. Is it not time that membership of the United Nations Security Council is not so directly and obviously linked to membership of the nuclear club?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) spoke about the financial implications, and I do not have time to go through those again in detail. But I agreed with my right hon. Friend when he spoke about the possible impact on our economy, and related the sums that we are still spending on defence to what is happening in the other public services, with welfare cuts and so on.
I understand the position of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have defence industries in their constituencies, who are concerned about what will happen to the people who work there and about the efforts necessary for diversification and arms conversion. However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield I believe that diversification can be achieved.
In our economy we have started to develop an unhealthy reliance on arms sales to countries that we know are unreliable and sometimes despotic. I am not proud of the fact that we exported £5 billion worth of arms last year although the world market was declining. Why, in that effort, did 10 times as much Government money go towards promoting arms exports as went towards promoting civil exports? Why is the British taxpayer subsidising those sales? About one fifth of arms sales are paid for not by the foreign Governments concerned but by the British taxpayer, sometimes through tax credits and sometimes through subsidies.
Who is being armed? In third-world countries violent conflicts are being fuelled, debts increased and social spending undermined. I do not believe that many British taxpayers want their money to be spent in that way.
We need more than a review of our spending priorities. We need a fundamental shift in our policies away from reliance on nuclear weapons. We need real cuts in spending and we need to do something about the arms trade.

Dr. John Gilbert: I shall not detain the House long. I start by congratulating the new Minister of State for Defence Procurement; I trust that he will enjoy his stay at the Ministry of Defence, which is a most enjoyable Ministry, and that he will ensure that we receive written answers to the questions that he cannot deal with in the time available at the end of the debate.
Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, talked about the Gurkhas. I have not seen an official statement from the Ministry, so I should be obliged if we could be given an official notification if Gurkhas are to be recruited in the Parachute Regiment. If not, the story should be denied.
If Gurkhas are to be recruited, what numbers are contemplated and what terms are to be offered? I am asking much the same questions as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East. Will Gurkhas be employed on the same terms as the existing Gurkha battalions, or will they be paid on the same terms as British soldiers in the British Army? I foresee difficulties either way, if they are to be in a combined British-Gurkha unit. We should be told what structural organisation is proposed.
I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who made an extraordinarily eccentric speech. I take the view that the Gurkhas are admirable in any capacity in which they are prepared to serve this country. We are extremely lucky to have them, and I wish that we could increase the numbers of them who serve with the British forces.
I have one or two things to say about nuclear disarmament. It is beyond me how the Government have got themselves into their present position regarding nuclear weapons. When I consider the list of nuclear disarmaments that they have introduced in terms of


weapons systems—I am not talking about the capacity of the Trident system—I am surprised that they have not been awarded honorary membership of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Once we had nuclear depth charges; they have all gone.

Dr. John Reid: Unilaterally.

Dr. Gilbert: Unilaterally, as my Front-Bench colleague helpfully reminds me. We used to have Lance nuclear artillery; that has gone too. For a time we had cruise missiles; they have all gone. Now we are getting rid of the free-fall bomb, without any replacement. So we have no airborne delivery and no land-based delivery system. We are reduced to Trident alone.
I do not accept that Trident is satisfactory as a sub-strategic system. It was never designed as such. I know that one can adduce arguments as to how it could be used, but I remain unconvinced. I ask the Government what would have happened if Saddam Hussein, whom we all now know had a biological capability, had chosen to use that capability against British troops in the Gulf? What possible response could the British Government have offered—sending a Trident to Baghdad? Surely Her Majesty's Government did not contemplate that course. Would they simply have relied on the poor British troops having to sweat it out in nuclear protective clothing, leaving them at a great disadvantage in operational conditions?
I am the last to think that we should allow an enemy to dictate our targets or the weapon systems that we use, so what I am saying does not constitute an argument for our procuring a biological weapons capability and using that against the enemy. But surely we must be prepared when we are dealing with people such as Saddam Hussein. It could be anyone else; it could be the Libyans next month, or the Algerians or the Iranians. We never know where we shall find ourselves. Whoever would have thought that we would fight a war in the Gulf? We cannot be reduced to having only one option—Trident—for a nuclear weapons system. I greatly regret what the Government have done.
Finally, what is being done and what attention is being paid in the Ministry of Defence these days to what the Americans call communications warfare? There is a serious body of thought in the Pentagon that suggests that the next war, if there is one, will involve few immediate casualties in battlefield terms, but will mean instead the total destruction of a country's communications systems.
I do not believe that the figures are classified, but I do not have them at my fingertips, so let us say that about 80 per cent. of the day-to-day communications of the United States armed forces pass through the public telephone system. I should be surprised if the proportion in this country were very different. What research is being done in the Ministry of Defence? Is the question being seriously addressed, both in terms of self-defence and in terms of our ability to deter other people? To what extent are our communications systems dependent on the Internet, and how vulnerable will that be'?
Have the Government had discussions on the subject with our American allies? If not, why not? What proposals do they have for our national defence in that respect, and what will they tell the British people about it? It is high

time that we had, if not a White Paper at least a separate chapter in the annual defence estimates to instruct us what our plans are and how much they will cost. I have a nasty feeling that we are extremely vulnerable in that area, and I have yet to hear a peep from the MOD that it is aware of such matters. I do not have the pleasure of serving on the Select Committee on Defence these days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I serve on another very enjoyable Committee instead.
These are serious matters, and there are more and more suggestions in serious journals on the other side of the Atlantic that enormous amounts of research are being carried out by the Americans—and, I surmise, by the Russians and other potential enemies—into the matter. I hope that the Minister will give some assurances on these important points either in his wind-up speech tonight or in any correspondence that he might address to me.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I shall not join in the ritual criticism of the Secretary of State for Defence's speech at Blackpool, other than to say that I think on reflection the right hon. Gentleman might consider that it was a rather fickle speech to make. I believe that most of his colleagues, privately, consider its contents to have been immature.
I want to address a matter that relates to the European Union, and I would ask the Minister to consider this point. It seems to me that membership of the EU provides an implied security guarantee. I genuinely want to know the Government's view on that proposition. It seems inconceivable to me that a member state of the EU could alone be subjected to external aggression, as that would not be tolerated by other members. It would break up the Union and frustrate commerce and the markets, as well as affecting the concept of European citizenship which, while one may or may not agree with it, is nevertheless an enshrined concept.
Membership of the European Union must mean that external aggression on one member state would be intolerable to the rest of the EU. I wonder if the Minister could state whether he concurs with that view? I raised this matter with a senior official at NATO recently who, to my surprise, took a different view. I was genuinely surprised by his opinion, and therefore consider that the matter needs to be clarified.
I wish to humbly, but proudly, speak on behalf of the Visegrad group of countries which aspire to membership of the west. I shall speak in particular, although not exclusively, about Poland in which I take a keen interest. I believe that that country should have its rights recognised by the UK and other western countries. I believe that Poland is currently being unfairly neglected.
Reference was made during the tributes to Lord Home yesterday, by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to the fact that he thought that Poland had been dreadfully treated by successive Governments. In 1940, Winston Churchill said,
The gratitude of every home in our island, in the Empire and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by the odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of this war by their prowess and devotion. Never before in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
About 17 per cent. of those "few" were Polish or Czech-Slovak pilots. I agree with Churchill that the battle of Britain was pivotal in the maintenance and defence of


parliamentary democracy in this country and elsewhere. With that in mind, it is not inappropriate for me to draw attention to the fact that I believe that we have a moral obligation to those countries, albeit 50 years on. We have not dealt with those countries properly.
In the half-century from 1945, we said constantly to the countries of central Europe, "Look over the wall. Look how wonderful capitalism and democracy are." If some of our propaganda was to be believed, one would have thought that in the west the sun always shone and the rain never fell. After communism collapsed and the wall came down, they asked to join our club, but we said, "Hang on a moment." We then produced a load of reasons why we wanted to frustrate those countries' aspirations to be members of both the EU and NATO.
It is blatantly dishonest and shameful for us in the west to be frustrating the legitimate aspirations of those countries in central Europe which wish to join both NATO and the EU for a variety of reasons, one of which is the security guarantees provided by membership. Let us look at the excuses advanced for frustrating the admission of the Visegrad group of countries, and Poland in particular, into NATO. The first is the need for interoperability which, in simple terms, means that their bullets do not fit our muskets. There is more to it than that, but that is the broad excuse.
The second reason is the political dimension in the countries. It is suggested that the west is not certain that there is democratic-control of the military and that we are worried about the generals. That is an offensive argument, particularly in relation to Poland. A distinguished diplomat to whom I spoke recently said, "You have to see the posture of the generals at the war memorial in relation to the Minister of Defence." I would have thought that we would need a more sophisticated judgment than that. After all, there have been problems in the west with regard to the political accountability of the security services. I remember Watergate and the Elsberg papers, and there is presently a problem in Belgium about helicopters. We are not all whiter than white. There are established democracies now in Poland, the Czech republic, Hungary and Slovakia and, while I concede that there are problems, the so-called political considerations against their admission are bogus.
The political arguments and the question of interoperability were never raised when it came to Spain's accession into NATO. An abundance of Spanish generals at the time had been brought up as part of the Falangist tradition, but we decided that it was appropriate for Spain to be brought in. That was quite right, as I think that membership of NATO was one of the factors which led to the maintenance of constitutional democracy in Spain at the time of the abortive coup. I think that membership of NATO buttresses democracy, rather than frustrates it.
The real reason for delaying the accession of these countries—this is what makes me so angry—is that we are frightened of offending Russia. I do not agree with that, but it is a legitimate subject for us to debate, while the other reasons offered are bogus. Let us look at the question of Russia. In 1946 in Fulton, Missouri, Churchill said:
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across Europe, behind which we must refer to it as the Soviet sphere.
Reluctantly, we must accept that there was a Soviet sphere. Hon. Members on both sides of the House and people elsewhere in western Europe now acquiesce in a

Russian sphere of influence, or almost a Russian veto over the development of the legitimate aspirations of the parliamentary democracies in Poland, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak republics. That is wholly disgraceful.
If hon. Members cannot be persuaded of the moral arguments for the early admission of those countries to NATO, I must say that naked self-interest dictates that Poland should come in. One need only get a school atlas to see its strategic location on the Baltic to the east of Germany. It has a large land mass, and a population of 40 million people. It has some of the best and most sophisticated armed forces in the countries of the former Warsaw pact.
Poland has no minority problems. I notice that the Select Committee on Defence has suggested that there are such problems. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. Of all the countries in Europe, Poland probably has the fewest minority problems. We should reflect on that, and I hope that the Minister will respond to my question regarding the implied security guarantee that comes from membership of the EU.
I am deeply concerned that there are only 12 fluent Russian speakers in NATO's headquarters. That is breathtaking. We are spending money in our defence review on teaching people in central and eastern Europe to speak English, and I applaud that. We ought to spend some greenbacks on enabling our own officers and NATO diplomats to speak, understand and communicate with the Russians. That is probably the best contribution we could make.
I am mindful of the problems of Russia, and I want to be sensitive towards the subject. In that same speech in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill went on to say:
I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people … There was deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain … towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships.
That is absolutely right, but we do not do it by giving them a right of veto. That is a sign of weakness and foolishness. It is foolhardy in the extreme. It is not in the Russians' best long-term interests, or ours, at a time when things are unhappily decaying in Russia.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: I am grateful to be called, even as a tail-end Charlie in this two-day debate. In the few minutes that I have, I should like to go back to where we began the debate—with discussion of the notorious speech by the Defence Secretary last week in Blackpool. I wish to discuss the Europhobic tone of that speech. The reality of contemporary defence thinking is precisely the opposite of the direction in which the Defence Secretary seems to want the United Kingdom to go. The reality is that no serious person can contemplate Britain's defence needs today without concluding that, far from Europhobia, what we need is ever closer collaboration and co-operation in Europe, indeed perhaps integration in some areas, if that would produce practical, concrete benefits.
If the reasons for the need for co-operation have escaped the Defence Secretary, they can put up with some repeating, although more than one hon. Member has already made similar points in the past two days. There is first and foremost the increasing pressure on defence budgets. Electorates are increasingly unhappy with high


defence spending in the aftermath of the cold war. They want to see some evidence of the peace dividend that we were all promised. That puts severe pressure on Governments to reduce or constrain defence budgets.
At the same time, the costs of defence procurement are increasing astronomically. The costs of research, development, manufacturing, and purchasing equipment in every field are skyrocketing because ever more sophisticated technology is now available. It is clear that we cannot opt out of those costs because we must keep abreast with developments, especially as our forces become numerically smaller. They must have the punch to carry out the job that we ask them to do.
For a country the size of the United States, with its economies of scale, those financial pressures are just about manageable. For the European nation states, however, the pressures have become intolerable. The fiscal crisis point has now been reached. That has been clear from debates in the House in the past couple of years in which we have discussed cuts in defence expenditure. The sooner we admit that we are at this crisis point and face up to the consequences of it, the better.
There are only two responses to the fiscal crisis which now faces defence establishments across Europe. One is to give up the unequal struggle and accept a second-rate future of fewer items of increasingly inferior equipment for ever smaller forces. I do not believe that we should go down that road. We have a duty to our service men when we ask them to endanger their lives on their country's behalf to provide them with the best equipment and support possible.
So the only right answer to the financial crisis which is pressing on defence budgets is ever closer co-operation within Europe. We have to extend and deepen existing methods for planning, developing and purchasing jointly the best equipment possible for the armies of Europe. We must also, as a consequence, but also on its own merits, co-operate ever more closely in matters such as training, military doctrine and defence policy. That is truly the only sensible way forward. Indeed, it is already happening to an ever greater degree. That is why the Defence Secretary's speech last week was not only embarrassing but utterly empty of content. All the trends are going precisely in the opposite direction to the one in which the Defence Secretary urged us.
The pressures for European co-operation are not only financial and economic. There is also a political and strategic need for closer European action. We have seen over the summer a resurgence of American diplomatic involvement and presence in European security matters in the former Yugoslavia. Thank God for it. It is to our collective shame as Europeans that we should have to look to the Americans not merely for military muscle but, I am sorry to say, for moral leadership in responding to the holocaust which has consumed a quarter of a million lives in the past four years in Europe.
There was no passage more empty in the Defence Secretary's speech last week in Blackpool than his vainglorious boast that
we taught the Bosnian Serb generals that the slaughter of civilians will not go unpunished.
It is clear that he has a short and selective memory. What about the slaughtered civilians of Vukovar at the beginning of the conflict? What about the civilians of

Dubrovnik, of Omarska, of Srebrenica and Zepa? At each and every act of slaughter there was invariably a British Minister on hand openly and without apology washing his hands of any responsibility whatever. British Foreign Office and Defence Ministers repeatedly dismissed air strikes as ineffective and claimed that it would need hundreds of thousands of NATO troops to turn the military tide in Bosnia. It was a junior Foreign Office Minister who infamously flew to Sarajevo in 1992 to tell them that there was no seventh cavalry coming over the hill.
Four abject years of European appeasement led by this Tory Government cannot be absolved by one summer of American-led resolution. However, this belated American involvement should not blind us to the long-term trend, which is for Americans to become less and less inclined to be involved in European security matters to the same extent and more and more impatient with Europe's failure to deal with its own security problems.
Europe is rich. The European Union has a gross national product comparable to that of the United States. We have a bigger population. Indeed, we have more people serving in our armed forces than the United States. Of course, many of those people are conscripts, but many of them are regulars. According to the latest edition of The Military Balance published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Britain, France and Germany have between them 340,000 regular soldiers—not conscripts but regular soldiers. If one takes the regular armies of all the European states that are also members of NATO, which includes Spain, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Portugal, the total number of regular soldiers serving in the European Union is 490,000. That compares with the American regular army of 525,000. Although it is smaller, it is not so much smaller that it would not have an impact if it acted in a more cohesive, planned and co-ordinated way.
We have a duty to look after our security interests to a greater extent if we are capable of doing so. Defence dependency is a vice just as much as the welfare dependency that Conservative Members always talk about. As Europeans, we must get together and co-operate. The Maastricht treaty already commits us to precisely that. Article B commits the European Union to framing a common defence policy. The Government have signed up to that treaty and it is crazy to begin to draw back now. I agree with my Front-Bench colleagues—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Dr. John Reid: That was a great note for my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) to finish on, and it has been the unanimous verdict of most Opposition Members who have spoken.
This has not exactly been an all-ticket game, but the quality of the contributions has made up for that. Anyone who missed the debate missed something special: to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) impersonate Winston Churchill so well in a cockney accent was worth coming for alone.
I take this opportunity to welcome the new Minister for Defence Procurement to his post. It is fair to say that, in his relatively short period in post, his predecessor showed that he had some standing in the House because he


recognised the strategic importance of the British defence industry. To some extent, we were sorry to see him go as he brought a great deal of common sense to discussion of the defence industry. Despite that common sense, he somehow managed to be promoted to the Cabinet. We shall miss him, but we trust that his successor will follow where he left off. I shall comment on the Minister for the Armed Forces later.
Tonight's debate has been not just about the 1995 defence estimates but an opportunity to examine the last five years of fairly dramatic change in the Government's performance. As the Minister for the Armed Forces said, during that quinquennium there has been a number of dramatic changes and challenges. First, the nature of the perceived threat changed radically away from the conventionally defined threat of intention and capability, which was obvious when we cast our eyes eastward, to a more complex series of risks—a plethora of risks—part of which arose because of the decline of the former Soviet Union.
Secondly, the demise of the Soviet Union seriously affected the conceptual framework and the operational premises on which major international institutions had long been based. For instance, it initially left NATO without an obvious raison d'être. On a global level, it left the United States as the only real super-power in the United Nations. Thirdly, those changes coincided with, and were symbiotically related to, changes or proposed changes in European defence architecture—a subject that obviously bores the Defence Secretary, who constantly refers to it as "theology". Apparently, it interests him only when it is a platform for attacking those wicked foreigners. Finally, there were increasing pressures on the defence budget for domestic and internal reasons. The Government's fiscal incompetence caused them to scurry around looking for cuts in any budget, and defence was regarded as an easy option.
Before I wind up the debate, I wish to comment on the individual issues that have been raised and also on the strategic issues that we feel are important. As I have already outlined, the challenges have been great. We admit at the start that they would not have been an easy task for any Government. Unfortunately, for the most part the Government have failed miserably to rise to that challenge. Whereas foresight, clarity, strategy and long-term stability should have been their objectives, they have produced incoherence and short-termism. They have been constantly reactive to the course of events rather than proactive in shaping events. The result has been, for the most part, muddle and incoherence.
Only this week, we had another prime example of the manner in which the Government have got us all into a muddle. We heard that our infantry regiments were grossly undermanned. The shortfall—perhaps we will have this confirmed tonight—is to be made up by drafting in the Gurkhas, a point made by several hon. Members.
I have the highest respect for the Gurkhas. I had the opportunity to spend some time in jungle training with them in Belize some years ago through the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which I again recommend to anyone who would like to undertake it to give them some idea of the ethos and spirit of the armed forces. I am sure that if the Secretary of State for Defence were to put in a late application he would be welcomed with open arms. [Interruption.] On reflection, I would not wish that on the

Gurkhas; perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has already left. After all, they are not Europeans, so he might get along with them.
It really does take a bunch of geniuses—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) referred to his "Front Bunch"—to contrive a situation where the Ministry of Defence has just got rid of 111,000 personnel, 42,000 of them soldiers, and end up short of soldiers. And it takes a peculiar sort of genius when we have 3 million unemployed in Britain to decide to make up the shortfall by recruiting people in Nepal.
The Government do not see the irony of the muddle they have got into or the logic of their position. They have spent the past five years denying that the infantry is overstretched; now they are shouting publicly that the infantry is undermanned. They do not have the mental capacity to put the two facts together. Let me help the new Minister with this great intellectual problem. I want to make it easy for him and to try to be helpful. Will he say after me, "If the infantry are under strength in numbers in relation to tasks, they must by definition be overstretched in tasks relative to numbers." I challenge the Minister to repeat that. I will give him a copy of the speech and he can study it overnight. It is nice to have been vindicated on that point.
There are some things in the Government's approach that we welcome. We welcome the increase in the awards to holders of the Victoria Cross. I shall not be churlish and say that it is not overgenerous because, after all, past Labour and Tory Governments have failed to deal with the matter.
We welcome moves toward joint working, the purple arrangements already mentioned by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. We also welcome the announcement tonight on Rosyth and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) for all the work that she has done on that.
We especially welcome what is now referred to as the long-range rapid reaction force, which was announced in Blackpool last week by the Secretary of State for Defence. We welcome it but wonder whether it is the same one as was announced in July in the House of Commons and whether it is a different long-range rapid reaction force from that which was envisaged 12 months ago in the last debate? If it is the same one, I am very impressed. To manage to deploy that announcement all the way from Westminster to Blackpool in only '12 months is a credit to the logistics corps in the MOD. If they continue at the same rate, I have worked out that they will able to announce its establishment again next year in Edinburgh or in the north of Scotland, and by God, that will frighten the earth out of our enemies.
The hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Wyre (Mr. Mans) may agree with me and many Labour Members that the level of contractorisation is worrying. Recently, I was down at RAF Valley. We take a pragmatic approach to the matter but would urge two elements of caution. Remember not to watch the minutes and lose the hours. A private contractor used, for instance, on maintenance of RAF aircraft may be able to put in a bid lower than can the MOD precisely because he is recruiting trained personnel who have been made redundant by the MOD. Five years down the road, if the private company has to budget for


bringing in apprentices and if it cannot get them from the RAF, either the quote will go through the roof or we shall be left with a crisis.
My second point on contractorisation is that it is not sensible to understand the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I am glad that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces spoke with pride about the esprit de corps in the armed units. It is not an abstract concept of Queen and country that causes a squaddie at the bottom of Mount Longdon, having yomped for 16 hours, to go out freezing and to try to take that mountain from Argentines sitting on the top with night sights when he does not have any: it is the fact that he does not want to let down his mates, his family and his regiment. I ask the Government please not to allow the privatisation of units in the British armed forces ever to go in a direction that begins to undermine that morale.
Having welcomed a number of issues, I must say that the most current issue on which we separate from the Government is their attitude towards nuclear disarmament. I know that many Conservative Members wished to stand up tonight and to say how proud they were to see that the Labour party had put forward a concrete series of proposals within the context of a multilateral position towards nuclear disarmament. Time, however, obviously prevented any of them from having the opportunity to make that gracious gesture tonight.
We should still make it clear that we are different from the Government. On nuclear testing, we have long made plain our view that with the advent of computer simulation, nuclear testing is not necessary to secure the safety of our nuclear weapons. The Government obstinately refused to admit that until, basically, a moratorium was introduced by President Clinton. Is it not funny how often this Government suddenly discover a principled position when ordered to do so by the United States? Their reluctance to take such a position, just like their reluctance to criticise the French over nuclear tests, will on its own, even without the help of the Secretary of State of Defence at Blackpool, help to isolate us from the rest of the civilised world.
It is noticeable in terms of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that many countries that supported the decision did so reluctantly and were deeply critical of the nuclear weapons states. Three of our allies refused to sign a joint European Union position because they were not satisfied with the record of Britain and France in fulfilling article VI treaty obligations to pursue disarmament. The future credibility and effectiveness of the NPT will be undermined unless this Government and one or two others start to deal with honour and pragmatism in pursuit of the nuclear-free world which the Government say, for the first time this year in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", they believe in and wish to pursue.
One item that has not been mentioned in many debates but which was, I am glad to say, mentioned tonight by the hon. Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) is the cadet forces. Our cadet forces are rarely mentioned. Let us make it plain to everyone that they are not merely a means of recruitment for the armed forces. They fulfil a valuable and much-needed function in youth leadership and allow thousands of young people to develop character and leadership skills.
My wife and I recently had the opportunity to spend some time, courtesy of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces—I thank him for this—on what was called a challenge and adventure weekend. It was not an official cadets' activity. It involved groups of young people from deprived backgrounds, inner-city kids, who were at risk. They were not at risk in terms of the probation service; they were not kids who had offended. They were brought for the first time to the countryside—to canoeing, command tasks and challenge leadership. They were kids who had never before been given the opportunity to develop the potential within them. In many cases, they had been told by their teachers, by their background or by their families that there was nothing in them. The cadets are a much under-used asset.
Incidentally, for those who take an interest in racial and ethnic matters, many of the young people were from Asian backgrounds. They were boys and girls whose parents, of Muslim persuasion, were allowing them to go to the weekend, which they would not normally do, because the British Army was running it. There are thousands of young folk whose potential has been confined by circumstance or by background. The cadets are a grossly under-utilised national facility which I hope, if Labour is elected, we shall develop to an even greater extent as part of a new offer to a new generation.
I mentioned earlier the challenges that have faced the Government. Now that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has arrived—I have already welcomed the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—I take pleasure in welcoming the fart, if it is not too embarrassing for him, that he stayed at his post when all others were deserting the defence team. I say that because I believe that his continued presence will offer at least some hope to many in the armed forces who were verging on despair even before last Tuesday.
I know from many meetings throughout the country that the Minister's dedication and commitment and his persona—despite some of his rather aggressive tendencies towards us tonight—are held in deep respect. He has managed not only to be held in respect by the armed forces but, something which I thought was impossible for someone who is a Minister of State for the Armed Forces and a Tory, some of them actually like him as well.
However, we now have a genuine problem in defence. Of course, none of us likes to deal in personalities—which allows me to talk about the Secretary of State for Defence—but if the Secretary of State continues to make speeches in the way that he did, the persona and the message that is being conveyed will be inseparable.
Last week in Blackpool we heard of a fairy tale defence world, a sort of fantasy defence league, where Secretaries of State were resolute and resources plentiful, presided over by a new warrior king. Let me place the facts before the House. Before we disagree on our opinion, let us agree on the facts.
During the last decade the story in defence has been one of almost unparalleled reductions in defence expenditure. As a proportion of national income, the defence budget has fallen from a previous high of 5.8 per cent. to 3.9 per cent. five years ago to 3.3 per cent. It is now scheduled, under the present Government, to fall to 2.9 per cent. They have, and should be given credit for it, in practice carried out the Labour conference resolutions which they have condemned for many years.
As I have said, the defence budget is scheduled to fall. It means a cut in the procurement budget at the moment of 19 per cent. between 1991 and 1994 alone, while the defence budget will be cut by almost 30 per cent.—111,000 off manpower, 42,000 of them in the Army. They are, by any standards, staggering cuts. Anyone who cares to check what the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said last night will see that he confirmed that there are more on the way. That should not surprise any of us.
The man who inflicted those cuts on the armed forces was not the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He constantly told us that he was fighting against them. We have had 16 defence Ministers. The Government have gone through more Ministers at the front here in order to cut the defence budget by 30 per cent. than Scotland has players in qualifying for the European championships. The cuts were not inflicted by the three Ministers on the Treasury Bench. The man who inflicted them, the man who cheered every regimental closure, was the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury—now Secretary of State for Defence. He is not on the Treasury Bench tonight. I do not know where he is. Perhaps he is out having a pint with Jacques Santer. The current Secretary of State for Defence was given a reward of promotion for having slashed the defence budget.
Perhaps "reward" is the wrong word. The problem and tragedy of the latest reshuffle from the word go is the obvious fact that a once-proud Department of State, particularly prided by the Tories, became a dustbin for the enemies of the Prime Minister. It became the Tory equivalent of the guardhouse. The Secretary of State was to be stuck there and the substantial figure of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces would sit on him, as has obviously happened between last week and this week. The news of the appointment was met with despair. Gone are the days in the Admiralty, the Royal Air Force and the Army when the telegram appeared with the stirring announcement, "Winston is back". Hon. Members may imagine the bemused look of despair which greeted the letter saying, "Polly has been appointed". It does not have the same resonance.
As if it were not an insult to the armed services, the hero of this story—I have not, so far, mentioned his name—is now trying to use them as a bridgehead into Downing street. Last week, he was on active service in Blackpool. In a speech variously described in a very generous fashion as guff, hyperbole, chauvinism, rabble-rousing, poncing and posturing—I have only checked the quality press, because this is a family show—he managed to demean himself, and to debase his party and the relationship between the armed forces and the Minister. No one really cares what he does to himself and his party, but he will not be forgiven for two things: one was the cheap attempt to exploit the armed forces for party political advantage; the other was the abuse that he heaped on our European allies.
Let it be known that Opposition Members—and, I believe, the vast majority of Conservative Members—completely dissociate themselves from the vitriol poured on our European defence partners. We pay tribute to those in Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Germany and elsewhere who have stood shoulder to shoulder with this country for the past half century, and our French colleagues who have acted with us on the political wing of NATO and in Bosnia.
Incidentally, one would think that after three months in post the Secretary of State for Defence would have been told by someone where the headquarters of NATO are, and where the supreme headquarters of the allied powers in Europe are. In case any of the Ministers do not know, it begins with "B". No—not Bradford, but Brussels.
There was only one consolation to be had from last week's speech. As is obvious from all the comments made on this occasion, no one takes the Secretary of State seriously. It is his own fault.

Mr. Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Reid: I am rather pressed for time.
It is the Secretary of State's own fault. Here was the hero who tried to commandeer "Who dares wins" as his personal slogan; but this is the hero who, when the challenge for the leadership was issued, sneaked to safety beneath the Cabinet table, daring to emerge only to order 40 more telephone lines—a strategic thought—presumably in order to be able simultaneously to assure up to 40 candidates of his own undying loyalty.
Here was the warrior who spoke with pride of our armed forces: the man who, from his position as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, slashed the defence budget and dictated a reduction in the regiments. Here was the braveheart who told us—this is the moving bit; this is where we get to the peroration—that we had to feel the passion for defence in our hearts, bones and guts. This is the man who refused to join the Army cadets—on aesthetic grounds, if you please. Presumably they did not have enough Christian Dior cap badges.
It is obvious that the right hon. Gentleman approached these matters with the zeal of a convert—the fanaticism sometimes shown by those who have just seen the light on the way to Camberley. I recommend the book that I consulted: it is called "Michael Portillo—The Future of the Right". His political biography has been written before he has arrived in Downing street. I found a marvellous phrase in the book, which is a study of Michael Portillo's development of his view on defence. When reading that phrase, I could not help reminding myself of the stirring words with which the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Blackpool assembled faithful. He said:
Anyone, they say, is entitled to change his mind. Not about the defence of Britain, they're not.
It was, therefore, with some surprise that I read on page 25 of the book:
Malcolm Rifkind was the first Tory defence secretary never to have served in any of the armed forces, even as a conscript.
Then his biographer, a man who had studied his life, added:
Michael Portillo may well be the first former conscientious objector to be placed in charge of the nation's defences by a Tory government".
Yet this former pacifist and conscientious objector now stands up and tells us:
Anyone, they say, is entitled to change his mind. Not about the defence of Britain, they're not.
What I attack is not the right hon. Gentleman's sincerely held beliefs about pacifism, although I have never held them, or his sincerely held conscientious objections, although I have never held them either—what


I challenge is his right to demand that others should not change their minds and to describe others as wimps and cowards after having held the same views himself.

Mr. Bill Walker: At what age do young boys join the cadet forces?

Dr. Reid: If any Labour Member could be done down for believing in Santa Claus, the Conservatives would do it to him. His age does not matter. In any case, he held these views long after he left the cadets—in fact, until he went to Peterhouse—I have taken the trouble to read beyond page 25 of the book. The point is that people are sick and tired of a Tory Cabinet telling them to do as they say and not as they do.

Mr. Arbuthnot: As the hon. Gentleman is raising this issue with some force, has he asked my right hon. Friend whether the story is actually true, because he has assured me that it is not?

Dr. Reid: I made the naive assumption that the warrior king who dares would have the guts to come along tonight for his first defence debate and oppose me face to face while I raised the issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Installing telephone lines, perhaps.
All this could perhaps be excused on the grounds that the Secretary of State, as an hon. Member said last night, may be a sinner but is a sinner who has repented. So the standard apparently is that repentance is fine for those on one side of the House only. Another hon. Member put the speech down to immaturity, and indeed some things can be excused on that ground. After all, the Secretary of State for Defence is under 50, which I suppose qualifies him as a young Conservative.
There can be no excuse, however, for the right hon. Gentleman's degradation of the concept of patriotism, which has been mentioned by almost every Member who has spoken in the debate, including the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. [Interruption.] I am now honoured to be in the presence of such a man as the Secretary of State for Defence. I was just coming to the end of my speech and discussing patriotism. [Interruption.] I wish the Minister of State would stop briefing the Secretary of State. He fed him his lines all last week; he need not do the same again today.
I do not question the depth and sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's patriotism—no one in the House does—what I question is the form that his patriotism takes. Patriotism is not naked chauvinism. It is not narrow nationalism. When it is reduced to a mere dislike of foreigners, it is baseless—

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Read the speech.

Dr. Reid: I have been reading it. I am quite prepared, unscripted, to take on the Secretary of State in debate anywhere, any time. He did not have the courtesy or the guts to turn up to hear my accusations, so he should not come in now and start shouting from a sedentary position.
Patriotism is a function of national unity, not an instrument of national division. It is not a monopoly of any party, social class or group. The next time, therefore, that the Secretary of State makes a speech in which he recalls the veterans, he should remember that people in

here recall the veterans as well. On both sides of the House, we recall those who came from the dank jungles of Borneo, who burned in the searing deserts, and who sailed and sometimes drowned in the icy waters of the north Atlantic, and we recall them because we all have personal as well as patriotic reasons.
I recall Arromanches and Caen. I recall Nijmegen because my father fought there for this country with the Guards Armoured Division. I recall the Sicily landings, where his oldest brother died, and the invasion of France, where his youngest brother gave his life for this country. So do not tell us about patriotism or claim it as a monopoly: it belongs to all of us and everyone in the House has their own reason for remembering.
We remember, too, the forgotten army of everyone's speeches here. We have remembered those who died, but we have forgotten the ones who came home, the millions of service men and women who came back to this country after the war, who understood Churchill's caveat, if they had never understood it before, that there is no use ruling the waves abroad if one cannot flush out the sewers at home. They were determined that they would act together to construct for themselves, their children and their grandchildren a country that was marked by fairness, opportunity, decency and social justice, that they would construct together, all of them, all social classes, one nation bound together by the very rich diversity of the nation itself, united together in peace, in just the same way as they had been in adversity. That was their patriotic pledge and, if no one else in the House wishes to fulfil it, this party stands ready to fulfil it for their grandchildren.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): We have just heard a generally enjoyable speech from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). It was based partly on a book that was untrue, but let that pass. It was also rather rabble-rousing, to take a phrase from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). It certainly seemed to have done the trick of the rousing at any rate, but there is one point that I must draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention: the headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is not in a place that begins with a "B". It is in a place that begins with an "M" and it is not Motherwell; it is Mons.

Dr. Reid: I am sorry, but if the Minister checks he will find that the headquarters Of NATO is in Brussels. The headquarters of SHAPE—Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers, Europe—is in Mons. If he has enough time, I can run him through a better briefing than the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have thoroughly enjoyed today's debate. I found it better than yesterday's debate. We have had some thoughtful and constructive speeches. It is the first defence debate that I have had the privilege of answering and I feel lucky and proud to be able to do so.
We had several important speeches. One of them was from my hon. Friend the Member Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), to whom I am grateful for his remarks about the Tornado and about transport crews. I agreed with much of what he said about Eurofighter 2000 and air cadets.
I agree with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Motherwell, North that the cadets help young people to develop qualities of good citizenship. They are an


important element of the country's voluntary youth movement and the Government recognise the enormously important role that they play in society. My hon. Friend will understand, however, that the cadets cannot be immune from the proposals for increased efficiency which the whole of the armed forces have. We have asked the cadet forces to consider how that might be achieved, but no decisions have been taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) made a constructive speech and I am grateful for much of what he said, not least his comments about our equipment programme. His comments about overstretch will be listened to carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) talked about the shortfall in recruitment. I can confirm that we are considering using Gurkhas to fill shortfalls in other areas of the Army. No decisions have been made. We arc also looking at other ways of dealing with the shortfalls such as a vigorous recruitment campaign and the introduction of a re-engagement bounty.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Minister give a commitment that if the Gurkhas are to be used in the way that he envisages, they will receive their full pension entitlement rather than the shortfall of pension that they receive now?

Mr. Arbuthnot: As I have said, no decisions have been made and, in any event, the difficulties that can arise as a result of using Gurkhas have been raised by the right hon. Member for Dudley, East and I agree with much of what he said.
My hon. Friends the Members for Blaby and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) who made a distinguished and courageous speech about homosexuality in the armed forces. It is well known that my Department takes the view that homosexuality is incompatible with achieving the aims of the armed forces as it can undermine the good order and discipline that are essential for military effectiveness. This policy is not a matter of moral judgment but stems from a practical assessment of the implications of homosexual orientation on the unique circumstances of military life and, therefore, on combat effectiveness. The policy was supported by the Select Committee considering the Armed Forces Bill in 1991.
Earlier in the year, as the House will be aware, the High Court ruled on the exclusion of homosexuals from the armed forces. It confirmed that the policy was lawful and that any decision on its future must properly rest with Parliament. The High Court urged that the policy should be reviewed to take account of changing social attitudes and the experience of other countries where homosexuals are allowed to serve in the armed forces. In the light of that judgment, we decided to conduct the internal assessment of our policy, which is currently under way.
The aim of the assessment is to present a paper of objective evidence to the Select Committee considering the forthcoming armed forces Bill in order to assist in any deliberations on the subject. The assessment team is considering advice given to Ministers by senior military advisors as well as consulting service personnel of all

ranks. It is also examining the full range of arguments put in the High Court together with the situation in the armed forces of other countries.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and I thank him for his comments. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the review will be prepared to receive information from those of us not inside the Ministry of Defence? Will it be possible for an organisation such as Stonewall or even for me to make representations during the internal review?

Mr. Arbuthnot: As I have told the House, it is an internal review but my hon. Friend the Minister of State will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is being most helpful and I welcome Her Majesty's Government's approach. It must be right for the Parliament at Westminster, after the next election, to make a decision on matters of such importance to our armed forces and to our country. Can my hon. Friend give an undertaking that it will be the Parliament at Westminster, during the passage of the armed forces Bill in the next Parliament, which will make a decision and that it will not be at the behest of the European Court if the matter comes within the jurisdiction of that body?

Mr. Arbuthnot: As I have said, it is for the Select Committee on that Bill to consider.
As always, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a speech that I found fascinating. Like the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), he referred to the independence of our nuclear deterrent. Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent and under the absolute control of Her Majesty's Government. The deterrent is committed to NATO except when supreme national interests require and we are not dependent on the United States to fire our nuclear weapons.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), in what I though was a slightly unbalanced speech, referred to the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. Following the decision to locate the Joint Services Staff college at Camberley in 1997, a marketing campaign has been in hand to seek an appropriate future use for the site by non-Government tenants. We are seeking imaginative but appropriate uses, which must be fitting to the history and architecture of the site and which will allow Greenwich to be appreciated by a wider audience.
I fully appreciate the importance of the site—a point that the hon. Gentleman rightly made. The site will remain Crown property. The marketing campaign will be concluded on 15 November, but the final decision will not be made until the middle of next year. The Defence School of Languages remains my Department's preferred occupant for the site if no other suitable non-Government tenant can be found.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) asked about the launch of the landing platform helicopter—the LPH. When it was launched on 11 November it sustained minor damage when the forward launch cradle collapsed prematurely. Repair of the damage is not expected to impact significantly on the programme.
One speech that I must deal with before moving on is that of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) yesterday. He asked me to meet a deputation about


Raytheon, which I am happy to do. Perhaps at the same time we could discuss the other important issues that he raised in his speech.
The debate has given the House an opportunity to consider our defence strategy at a time of significant change. The Government are committed to maintaining the high quality, capable and properly equipped forces that we need to underpin our defence and foreign policy aims. In an age increasingly dominated by technology, proper equipment is vital. I want to take this opportunity to say something about our procurement policy, which is the key to ensuring that we get the best equipment and the best value for money from the defence budget.
Before doing that, I must do what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces promised earlier today and refer to Rosyth. Following our decision that Rosyth should become a support establishment, we have been actively seeking to market the core industrial naval base area as a single entity for commercial port and related activities. A detailed assessment of the bids received is now taking place. I am pleased to tell the House that the Rosyth 2000 consortium has emerged as our preferred tenderer to progress the sale of the naval base by the end of March 1996. The consortium consists of the Bank of Scotland, Forth Ports plc, Scottish Power plc and the Babcock International group, with Evans of Leeds as an associated partner.
I am confident that the consortium has a credible business plan for the development of the naval base area and the expertise and financial resources to sustain regeneration in the longer term. It is prepared to make a substantial investment in Rosyth, with potential opportunities for the creation of new jobs. The new injection of capital will complement the investment that the Ministry of Defence has made in Rosyth over many years. I am satisfied that the Rosyth 2000 bid represents a fair return to the taxpayer for the sale of the site. Negotiations continue with Babcock International over the proposed sale of the adjacent dockyard. Our aim is to conclude those negotiations as soon as possible, but a decision on whether that transaction should proceed has not yet been made.

Ms Rachel Squire: I thank the Minister for giving some good news to Rosyth and to Scotland and for recognising the importance of planned economic regeneration to an area that is so devastated by defence cuts.
After 90 years of operation as a naval base, will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to all the naval personnel and civilian employees who have served this country so loyally and so well at Rosyth?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I will indeed. I also pay 'tribute to the hon. Lady for the close interest which she has taken in the naval base.
Since the mid-1980s, our policy has been to achieve value for money through the use of competition wherever practicable. My Department is the United Kingdom industry's largest single customer and we must ensure that we maintain a proper commercial relationship with our suppliers. The return of large sections of the defence industry to private ownership in the 1980s helped, as has our willingness to open up our requirements more widely to overseas suppliers, but competition has been the key.
The policy has produced real improvement for the taxpayer and for the armed forces. We estimate that competition has reduced the costs of procurement by more than £1 billion a year for equivalent output. It has given us a UK defence industry which is better placed to take on its competitors worldwide and win, as defence export orders averaging £4.5 billion a year over the past five years demonstrate. That has helped industry through the undoubtedly painful transition to the post-cold war world, but it has also allowed us to concentrate our resources on enhancing the capabilities of our front-line forces.
Of course not all of our current industrial capabilities are strategic. National self-sufficiency in armaments is not achievable.

Mr. John Denham: I would like to ask a question before the Minister moves off the point about competition policy. If competition policy is so important, will he reconsider the Government's decision to exclude Vosper Thorneycroft from the right to bid for at least part of the refit work on Sandown class minehunters—vessels originally built by that warship yard? At the moment, the yard is not entitled to bid for the work and therefore the Government will not know the realistic price for that work.

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman again fights valiantly for his constituency. I shall obviously consider the point that he raises, but I do not think that it would be in the long-term interests of competition to agree with his immediate point. We need to identify which defence industrial capabilities we would prefer to sustain in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that we do not, perhaps for lack of proper thought, lose those elements important to the future health of the defence industrial sector.
We are part of a long-standing and close alliance. A degree of military interdependence has been a reality for decades. There is not a single major item of defence equipment in our infantry which is wholly British in origin. Not even the United States can realistically achieve total self-sufficiency in defence equipment.
We already take industrial factors into account in our procurement decisions—for example in offset or in industrial participation proposals. We do not believe that the size and shape of the UK defence industry should be primarily determined by Government. In that respect I completely disagree with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield who said:
Do not tell me that we cannot diversify".
Nobody has told him that we cannot diversify. But we do tell him that Governments are not well placed to direct that diversification. How industry is structured and what products it makes should be determined by commercial decisions within the market, subject of course to national and European regulatory authorities.
Our overriding aim must be to ensure that our armed forces are provided with the equipment which they need to conduct the whole range of missions that they face. In the changed security environment since the end of the cold war, it is less easy to predict where our armed forces will be deployed, who our allies will be, and what will be the capability of our probable opponents. Our forces need to be prepared and equipped to take on a wide array of tasks covering both combat and other operations other than war.
There has been an increase in the number of operations being undertaken, and that higher level of activity looks set to continue. Flexibility, mobility, combat power and utility will be key factors in determining force structures and equipment provision, and ensuring that we have the right military capability in both peace and war. We will continue to keep under review the commitments faced by our armed forces, the capabilities that they require and the resources available so that we can ensure that the services are equipped for their job and that we achieve best value for money in providing the necessary equipment.
While the overall defence budget is reducing in size, we have succeeded in reducing the costs of supporting the front line and cutting administration and headquarters costs. That has enabled us to plan on increasing the amount spent on equipment as a proportion of the total. Part of that success has been due to the defence costs study and we are on track for the implementation dates and the savings. We are confident that the £720 million a year of DCS-related savings that we have so far identified for 1996–97 will rise to more than £1 billion a year by the end of the decade. That is a remarkable achievement. The aim of the exercise was to ensure that every £1 spent on defence contributes directly or indirectly to our fighting capability. The DCS savings have enabled us to enhance our front line strength and contributed towards the excellent shape of our forward equipment programme.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that we have ordered conventionally armed Tomahawk land attack missiles. They will provide a significant addition to our military capability. Also, for the Royal Navy, we placed a main production order for Spearfish torpedoes with GEC Marconi last December. It is the most advanced anti-ship and anti-submarine torpedo in the world and it will replace the Tigerfish torpedo in all Royal Navy submarines.
We are continuing to modernise our fleet of destroyers and frigates with Type 23s replacing older vessels. We have received and are assessing bids for the design and build of a second batch of the Trafalgar class submarines—

Mr. Mackinlay: Rabble-rouser.

Mr. Arbuthnot: You wait. We are in contract negotiations with VSEL for the design and construction of the new landing platform docks for use by the Royal Marines and, looking further ahead, the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995" highlights our plan to introduce the common new generation frigate.
For the Army, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in July our intention to place a contract with Westland Helicopters for 67 Apache attack helicopters. For the Royal Air Force, the key equipment programme is Eurofighter 2000. We plan to take a production decision next year on this project which is intended to provide the cornerstone of our future air defence capability.
We announced last December our decision to purchase 25 C130J aircraft. The Hercules was the only new build aircraft available in the required time scale to meet the RAF's urgent operational needs and the contract was signed on 3 March this year. Quick progress is being made and the first aircraft is due to be delivered to the Royal Air Force by June 1997.
The Government and British industry are working hard with our future large aircraft partners to ensure that our criteria—that it is managed on a commercial basis and meets our requirements on price and specification—are met. We very much hope that the FLA will prove suitable to meet our requirement to replace the balance of the Hercules fleet and other possible longer-term air transport needs from the early part of the next century.

Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend mentioned—[Interruption.] Opposition Members are going to be disappointed. My hon. Friend mentioned the Hercules C130.J. Can he give us any information about the cost of that aircraft and whether the Royal Air Force will be paying any more for it than the United States air force?

Mr. Arbuthnot: One of the advantages of our procurement exercises and the foreign sales that we managed to procure is that we are able to tag on to the end of long runs provided by other air forces. I believe that that is precisely the case with the C130Js.
Our programme is outstanding and is evidence of our commitment to getting the best equipment that we can for the people at the sharp end. It means that we can provide the equipment that our armed forces need, but let us consider for a moment what the Opposition parties have in store for us. I begin with the Liberal Democrats. I listened with interest to yesterday's speech by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I read it again today in Hansard and I must confess that at the end of it I was no clearer about what he wanted than I was at the beginning.
The Liberal Democrats have not troubled us with an amendment to the motion—presumably in order to leave themselves free to promote different policies in different areas of the country. However, their recent defence history is striking, because theirs is the party that called for a 50 per cent. cut in defence spending one month after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Last year, the Liberal Democrats reversed that policy, calling for a comprehensive defence review. This is 1995—new year, new policy. Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East attacked the Labour party for wanting a fundamental defence review—because, he said, it would damage morale. How right he was, but what will next year bring from the Liberal Democrats? We wait with bated breath.
However, we know what the Labour party wants. It wants to cut defence spending further. After all, where else would it find the money to pay for its spending? There is a limit to the amount that Labour could milk from the taxpayer and run up in credit. As has been said, "You can't trust Labour on defence."
We know that Labour is not satisfied with what has happened already as a result of the end of the cold war. The estimates that we are debating promise a period of stability for the front line, but we know that that is a promise that the Labour party would not honour, and that stability is not on its agenda—because, "You can't trust Labour on defence."
The Labour party calls for a full-scale defence review. Although the Liberal Democrats did not bother to table an amendment, the Labour party gave us the pleasure of two. The amendment tabled by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman calls for a review, and to see what that review would produce we need look no further than the amendment tabled by Labour Back Benchers.
There is something funny about that amendment. Yesterday it looked rather different, because then it was signed by 37 brave and honourable Labour Members who were prepared to stick their heads above the parapet and say what they believed even though that is forbidden in the Labour party at the moment. Today we see only 11 signatories. What are we to think? What has happened to the anti-nuclear 26? Have they all become nuclear overnight?
What has happened to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who yesterday made a courageous speech against his Front Bench and proudly nodded when asked whether he had signed the amendment? His name is not on the amendment now.

Mr. Llew Smith: rose—

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does the hon. Gentleman genuinely think today that what he said yesterday was a load of rubbish? It was, but what has happened to make him think so?

Mr. Smith: rose—

Mr. Arbuthnot: I know the answer. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was more persuasive last night than even he imagined. When he was winding up the debate not even he thought that the result would be queues of Labour Members outside the Table Office desperate to establish their warlike credentials.
What are we to say about the 11 brave souls who are left? Clearly their chance of preferment is gone. "For you, the war is over." I salute them, because they, at any rate, are true to their principles, and they have the comfort of knowing that they represent the core of the Labour party.
What is left is an amendment that could properly be called an iceberg amendment—the tip of the iceberg. It sets out what the Labour party really wants to emerge from its review—not just 11 or even 37 people, but the heart of the Labour party. If 26 of them can suppress their feelings overnight so can 226 of them—because, "You can't trust Labour on defence."
The amendment says that we should reduce spending to an average of what the other western European countries spend—in other words, cut spending by one third. We also know that Labour wants to scrap Trident, because the amendment says so.
Labour's problem is that the British people are genuinely interested in the defence of this country. The Labour party's policy on defence is to keep it low-profile. It is not so much a policy as a desperate concern. I hope that the hon. Member for South Shields will forgive me for suggesting that the low-profile policy may be one of the reasons why he has the job of Opposition defence spokesman, because his name is not exactly household.
This year was the first year since 1989 that the Labour party conference did not pass a motion calling for defence spending to be slashed by a third. That was because the party did not dare put such a proposal to the vote at the conference because it knew what the result would be. It is not just the British people who cannot trust Labour on defence—not even Labour trusts Labour on defence. The Opposition do not trust themselves. We do not trust them. The people do not trust them. Let us have none of their amendments, none of their policies and none of them.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:  Ayes 262, Noes 301.

Division No. 215]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Dobson, Frank


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Donohoe, Brian H


Allen, Graham
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Armstrong, Hilary
Eagle, Ms Angela


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Eastham, Ken


Ashton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Austin-Walker, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Barnes, Harry
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Battle, John
Fisher, Mark


Bayley, Hugh
Flynn, Paul


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, Andrew F
Fraser, John


Benton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Bermingham, Gerald
Galloway, George


Berry, Roger
Garrett, John


Betts, Clive
Gerrard, Neil


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blunkett, David
Godman, Dr Norman A


Boateng, Paul
Godsiff, Roger


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Thomas


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Gunnell, John


Callaghan, Jim
Hain, Peter


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hall, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hanson, David


Campbell, Ronnie (Blylh V)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D N
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cann, Jamie
Harvey, Nick


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Church, Judith
Henderson, Doug


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hodge, Margaret


Clelland, David
Hoey, Kate


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Coffey, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cohen, Harry
Hood, Jimmy


Connarty, Michael
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Corbett, Robin
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hoyle, Doug


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cummings, John
Hutton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dafis, Cynog
Janner, Greville


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Darling, Alistair
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jowell, Tessa


Denham, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Keen, Alan
Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Khabra, Piara S
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Purchase, Ken


Kirkwood, Archy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Randall, Stuart


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Raynsford, Nick


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Reid, Dr John


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rendel, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


McCartney, Robert
Rooney, Terry


Macdonald, Calum
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McKelvey, William
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McMaster, Gordon
Short, Clare


McNamara, Kevin
Simpson, Alan


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maddock, Diana
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Mahon, Alice
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mandelson, Peter
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Soley, Clive


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Martlew, Eric
Stevenson, George


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Milburn, Alan
Timms, Stephen


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Touhig, Don


Morley, Elliot
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Watson, Mike


Mudie, George
Welsh, Andrew


Mullin, Chris
Wicks, Malcolm


Murphy, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Wilson, Brian


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Winnick, David


Olner, Bill
Wise, Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Parry, Robert
Wright, Dr Tony


Pearson, Ian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Pike, Peter L
Mr. Dennis Turner and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Stephen Byers.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arbuthnot, James
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Batiste, Spencer





Beggs, Roy
Forth, Eric


Bellingham, Henry
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bendall, Vivian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Garnier, Edward


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright Sir Graham
Gorst, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing North)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Grylls, Sir Michael


Budgen, Nicholas
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Butler, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, Sir John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Couchman, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cran, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunter, Andrew


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hurd, Fit Hon Douglas


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Jenkin, Bernard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
King, Rt Hon Tom


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knapman, Roger


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evennett, David
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Faber, David
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fabricant, Michael
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Legg, Barry


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Leigh, Edward


Fishburn, Dudley
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lidington, David


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael
Lightbown, Sir David


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter






Lloyd, Fit Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luff, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


McLoughlin, Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


Madel, Sir David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Malone, Gerald
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Spink, Dr Robert


Marlow, Tony
Spring, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan


Mills, Iain
Streeter, Gary


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Sweeney, Walter


Moate, Sir Roger
Sykes, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thomason, Roy


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thumham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Page, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Sir Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walden, George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Pickles, Eric
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Ward, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Whitney, Ray


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wilkinson, John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wilshire, David


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Sackville, Tom
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, David (Dover)



Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Mr. Simon Burns and Dr. Liam Fox.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:-

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. David Shaw: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There seems to be

some intimidation going on. There are gentlemen standing and preventing people from going into the Lobby opposite. They seem to be Labour Whips.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I see no intimidation anywhere.

The House having divided: Ayes 304, Noes 28.

Division No. 216]
[10.17 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Ancram, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Arbuthnot, James
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Ashby, David
Duncan, Alan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dykes, Hugh


Baldry, Tony
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Elletson, Harold


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Faber, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Booth, Hartley
Fishburn, Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bright, Sir Graham
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Fry, Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Gallie, Phil


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Burt, Alistair
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Butcher, John
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gill, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Grylls, Sir Michael


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Clappison, James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Hargreaves, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Harvey, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Cope, Rt Hon Sr John
Hawkins, Nick


Couchman, James
Hawksley, Warren


Cran, James
Heald, Oliver






Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pawsey, James


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rendel, David


Jenkin, Bernard
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jessel, Toby
Richards, Rod


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&amp;S)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knapman, Roger
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Sir Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lidington, David
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Lightbown, Sir David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Maddock, Diana
Stern, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Thomason, Roy


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trend, Michael


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Willetts, David


Waller, Gary
Wilshire, David


Ward, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Waterson, Nigel
Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Whitney, Ray



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. Simon Burns and


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Dr. Liam Fox.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Madden, Max


Austin-Walker, John
Mahon, Alice


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Marek, Dr John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bennett, Andrew F
Mullin, Chris


Burden, Richard
Parry, Robert


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Cohen, Harry
Simpson, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Skinner, Dennis


Dafis, Cynog
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gerrard, Neil
Welsh, Andrew


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)



Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Eddie Loyden.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Llew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister complimented me on making a courageous speech against nuclear weapons yesterday. I saw that speech not as courageous, but as sensible: I have no ambitions to destroy this earth of ours with nuclear weapons.
The Minister went on to say, however, that along with 25 of my hon. Friends I had withdrawn my name from the amendment. Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that none of us did so? The confusion seems to have arisen because the Minister does not understand the procedure. The six original signatories are named, as well as five additions—which means that more than 40 people signed the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may help the House if I remind hon. Members that the House's practice is to print only the top six names on a motion or amendment each day when it appears on the Order paper. Below the top six, only new signatories' names are printed on the second and subsequent days.

Sir Irvine Patnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that the House has no concessions or penalties that it can raise, but I find it rather strange that 28 Opposition Members are voting against a three-line Whip—and this is the party that would be king.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,

That Sir George Young be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Michael Jack to be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Ordered,

That Mrs. Cheryl Gillan be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Robert Atkins be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos 4, 5 and 6.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE

Ordered,

That Mr. Roger Knapman be discharged from the Agriculture Committee and Mr. William Powell be added to the Committee.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE

Ordered,

That Sir Nicholas Bonsor be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr. Keith Mans be added to the Committee.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HERITAGE

Ordered,
That Mr. Roland Boyes and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Sebastian Coe and Mr. Roger Stott be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Orders of the Day — Highland Communities NHS Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am grateful for an opportunity so early in the reconvened Session of Parliament, before the beginning of the new Session next month, to raise an urgent matter—the financial crisis that has struck the Highland Communities NHS trust.
In August, the trust discovered that it was carrying a potential deficit in the current financial year of £1.8 million, £1 million of which was due to an apparent unallocated sum in its contract with the Highland health board. Health board finance officers and accountants take the view that the sum was not noticed on their purchaser side of the contract, as the total figure involved seemed in line with the previous year. Trust management acknowledged error on its provider side, and in consequence, the then director of finance departed; but the problem has not gone away.

Sir Russell Johnston: As a result of the mistake, redundancies are likely. Nursing staff are likely to lose jobs. However, the chief executive and chairman are unaffected. Does my hon. Friend think that that is fair?

Mr. Kennedy: Inevitably, the question of the apportionment of blame will have to go wider than the previous director of finance at the trust. Indeed, I think that it would be wrong in principle if the eventual outcome of the controversy simply established a benchmark—not just in this context, but elsewhere in Scotland—that difficulties run into by management over the operation of their budgets in hospital trusts or community trusts could be dealt with by recourse in the first instance to redundancies at staff and ward level. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to that issue of principle. It would be an extremely damaging precedent if it were set.
I want to make two immediate observations. First, the eventual agreeing of the contract between the health board and the trust seems to me to have been too long drawn out. That cannot have helped early anticipation of and dealing with potential problems. In my discussions with senior representatives from each side, I have heard criticisms of the other. Accordingly, I repeat my call tonight for an independent assessment of the way contracts are drawn up between the purchaser, the health board, and the provider—the health trust.
Secondly, there appears to be, as my hon. Friend has just made clear, no disagreement over the morality of the situation. Had these confusions not arisen, that £1 million should and would have gone to the trust. The board has a policy now—I endorse it—of not holding on to budget surpluses until near the end of any given financial year: instead, releasing steadily such sums for specific projects over the course of the year. As such, the bottom line is crystal clear: the money is simply no longer there.
Last month, the trust identified a hit list of potential cuts and savings, by way of response—what both it and central Government euphemistically label "the recovery plan". Among the possible recovery indices are the


closure of a ward at the Royal Northern infirmary in Inverness, between 35 and 45 redundancies, as well as a cross-section of smaller items.
The Minister responsible for health, who will reply to this debate, confirmed his status as euphemist extraordinaire when he wrote to me on 22 September to say:
What is recognised and accepted by all concerned is the importance of formulating a plan which maintains the level of quality of service previously provided for patients and that proper systems are put in place to ensure that the need for change is more adequately planned for in the future.
Quite. The next question, therefore, is: what steps have been taken in that direction so far? On 28 September, on BBC Radio Scotland's "Drive Time" programme, the Minister described these planned service and personnel cuts, along with the parallel difficulties which by then had erupted in the Grampian area, as "minor difficulties". They may seem minor problems to him—

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that two out of 47 trusts in Scotland were having their problems, and that, in the context of the general situation, these matters could be resolved? I shall say why in a few moments.

Mr. Kennedy: In terms of the arithmetic, the Minister is correct. But these two trusts were at the head of the queue, and became trusts before most others in Scotland, and if I were the Minister I would be worrying that they might be the tip of the iceberg. How many of these difficulties may arise with the other 47 trusts? The time ahead will be difficult, not just for the communities liable to be affected, but for the politicians who will have to deal with the problems during the run-up to the election.
The difficulties are not viewed locally as minor problems by the patients facing closed wards, or by the health service employees facing redundancy. I want at this point to say a word about the distinct but related problem represented by the closure of ward 3 at Invergordon's county hospital, again with attendant staff redundancies. It too is covered by the trust, although this controversy has been separate.
On Saturday last, I joined the local march and rally about this matter. It was characteristically well organised by Mrs. Gary MacLennan, the Unison regional officer, and extremely well supported by staff and local community alike. I also pay tribute to the work done by Councillor Isabel Rhind to advance the interests of those in the area on this issue.
Tonight I ask the Minister to require the trust to halt further moves towards redundancies at the hospital, and to require it to sit down at senior level with staff and union representatives, as well as the health board, to consider a better way forward. I also seek a statement from the Minister that, if required, he will be prepared to meet me and a small representative delegation on this subject.
Returning to the broader picture of the trust, in the past 24 hours, two significant developments have taken place. Last night, the Minister issued a press statement welcoming the decision in principle by the health board—incidentally, this applies similarly to the position in Grampian—to make additional funds, amounting in the context of the trust to £500,000, available to help ease the trust's plight. Describing this as "very good news", he said that this

will ensure that patient care is not affected
while the trust works on its recovery plan.
I appreciate that the new Secretary of State for Scotland is keen to sharpen media awareness of his ministerial team, and to improve its street-fighting capabilities. Equally, I know that, on the day of the Skye bridge opening, the Scottish Office would be glad to trumpet any grain of good news from a Highland perspective. The only problem is that, last night, the Minister was welcoming a decision that had not yet been announced.
This evening, the general manager of the Highland health board has issued a statement of his own, and I should like to read it in full:
To avoid any detriment to either the range of quality of patient care, I am prepared to recommend to the Board that additional finance be provisionally allocated to Highland Communities Trust. Such finance would be for schemes agreed with the Board. It must be recognised that any additional finances for Highland Communities Trust would come from money already earmarked for service maintenance and development in a number of Trusts. This means that the Board would not be in a position to enhance services to the population of the Highlands to the extent intended.
The sound that one hears there is of teeth being pulled, and understandably so. By his pre-emptive press release last night, the Minister has admitted that he has responsibility here, yet he has so far refused to progress from being a commentator on the scene to being a contributor towards a solution. He is being passive, where we need active participation.
In conclusion, the Scottish Office should make good the deficit. It should not be squeezed from existing health care provision at local level. 'There should be an independent inquiry into the contract negotiations and finance overviews regionally. That refers also to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made in his intervention.
Crucially, the requirement on the trust to secure a 6 per cent. net return on its £50 million asset base is proving too great a burden to deliver. At present, it is on line for a return between 3 and 4 per cent. The Minister must accept that for this year, and show flexibility over the next three to four years.
This sorry tale, I fear, reflects systemic shortcomings in the national health service reforms. Tonight, we can seek only short-term palliatives. The real solution, I suspect, lies in the ballot box.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate, and on being so generous as to give me plenty of time to reply. Of course, health boards receive their funding from the Scottish Office. We are in constant touch with the health boards, and the management executive gives advice to trusts and health boards in situations of this nature.
Turning to the specific problem of the Highland Communities NHS trust, we have here a trust whose costs are currently higher than its incomes by 2.85 per cent. approximately—£1.4 million. Let me make it clear that the trust is not bankrupt. It is perfectly able to continue providing a high level of service for the people in its region and to keep paying the salaries and wages of its staff.
So that the House will be in no doubt, let me repeat that the Government, the health board and the trust are determined to ensure that patient care is not, and will not be, compromised while the trust recovers from its financial difficulties. Furthermore, I wish to pay tribute to the many innovative schemes that the trust has introduced for the benefit of its patients. Those include new facilities for the treatment of Parkinson's disease, and a new drug and alcohol dependency centre. The trust has also begun upgrading Belford hospital in Fort William, as well as completing new community health centres in Gairloch and Dundonnell, and I could continue with other examples.
Trusts receive the bulk of their income from contracts with the health boards, which in turn receive their funding from the management executive. In 1995–96, the Highland health board received from the management executive a 3.65 per cent. increase in its base allocation compared with 1994–95 against a national average increase of 2.44 per cent. There is therefore no question of the highlands being inequitably treated in the distribution of NHS resources—quite the reverse.
In examining the trust's financial situation, I should explain that the trust has contract income for 1995–96 of some £48 million, and, as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye said, when its forecast deficit first came to light, it was projected at £1.8 million.
In responding to the specific financial points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I should explain that the shortfall arises from a combination of factors. The largest single issue relates to non-recurring developmental moneys being used to finance recurring day-to-day expenditure during the last financial year. In essence, the trust delayed implementing certain developmental measures, and did not fill staff vacancies immediately they arose. That had a knock-on effect into the current financial year.
In addition, the trust was unable to make the necessary financial planning and accounting adjustments to compensate for the resources being transferred by the health board from the trust to Highland regional council for the care of mentally ill patients under the care in the community programme. The trust has not achieved its cash-releasing efficiency targets for 1994–95 and 1995–96. These efficiency targets are set for all trusts requiring them to generate improvements in efficiency in the way they deliver their services. That is good management practice, which is embraced throughout the private and public sectors.
I can assure hon. Members that there is simply no question of the Highland health board having retained money not claimed by the Highland Communities trust. The fact is that the trust never had the expectation of the £1 million error quoted in the newspapers as the sum which should have been forthcoming from the health board. It is the imbalance between the trust's expenditure and its anticipated income which is at the root of the problem. The trust had, in effect, managed to contain the problems it faced last year by using non-recurring funding from the health board to fund recurring developments, and the trust is having to meet these recurring costs this year.
My officials in the management executive have been in regular contact with the trust since it first became clear that the trust was going to be unable to balance its books in the current financial year. The first round of discussions and action which followed identified measures which

have reduced the shortfall to £1.4 million. Scottish Office officials have earlier today received details of the trust's recovery plan and that is being examined.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, in answer to one of his questions, that flexibility on the 6 per cent. rate of return will certainly be considered in the context of the trust's recovery plan.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I very much welcome that last point. It is a crucial block in this difficulty. In the detailed points being made by the Minister, some of which I have heard before in the discussions I have had with the health board and the trust, he is confirming the point I made. There is a great deal of allegation and counter-allegation going on at regional level in Inverness about who was carrying what forward, who was anticipating what, and who was contracting for what. One would need to be not just an accountant but a psychiatrist to understand all that. Does that not underline the need for a proper outside look at the way in which the discussions and negotiations have been conducted?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is taking me out of sequence, but I will answer him now. I do not see the need for an inquiry into contracting, and I shall say why. Contracting is not an annual event: it is a continual and continuing process. The board and the trust meet regularly to discuss contractual difficulties that may arise. In addition, the management executive is giving advice and will continue to do so on contractual issues, and it will mediate in the event of any dispute. So this is a continuing process. It is not my purpose tonight to apportion blame. I am determined to ensure that patient care does not suffer, and to get properly in place the necessary recovery programme and plan.

Sir Russell Johnston: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, as I want to answer some further points raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye.
Against the background of the trust's financial difficulties, I welcome the recent decision in principle by the Highland health board to make additional funds of £0.5 million available to the trust in the current financial year. That will ensure that patient care is not affected while the trust works to deliver its recovery plan.
I should explain to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye that these are funds that the board had earmarked for future service development, as he suggested, and that are likely to become available later this year. We were aware from our contact with the Highland health board that, given the circumstances of the trust, the board had it in mind to agree that this funding could be used to assist the trust with its recovery plans. I am sure that this additional resource—and it is additional—will be appreciated by the trust, but it will have to produce a sound and viable financial plan.
Our officials in the management executive will be keeping in close contact with the trust in the days and weeks ahead, and. together with the health board, will be considering whether there are any other avenues of support available to assist the trust. By that I mean that there is a possibility of further funds being made available by the health board.
However, we are only halfway through the year, and the trust still has to deliver its financial recovery plan. I will monitor that closely, as will Scottish Office officials. It will remain our top priority to ensure that patient care continues to be delivered to very high standards.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will give way to hon. Members in a moment, but first I want to answer a few more of the points raised by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye. He raised a significant point. He said that he was concerned about the possibility of redundancies arising from the recovery plan. However, the planned reductions across the whole of the trust arise not from the trust's present financial difficulties but from changes in the reshaping of services.
For example, with the move from long-stay hospitals into care in the community—a policy which is widely recognised to be in the best interests of patients—it is inevitable that adjustments to staffing levels will have to follow, and many trusts across the country are having to plan for those changes. The Highland Communities trust is no different from many other trusts in that regard. Of course, more jobs are being created in the coming year as a result of the care in the community programme, and some staff will have the opportunity to switch to community care posts.
However, in relation to those planned reductions, I can assure the House that the trust will first be seeking reductions by a process of natural wastage, which will include voluntary early retirements and staff prepared to go under a voluntary scheme. If there are any proposed compulsory redundancies arising from the recovery plan, I would have to be convinced that they are entirely necessary. In the meantime, I will monitor the position and keep it under close consideration.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye also, quite properly, questioned the way in which the trust has managed its affairs. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the trust's director of finance to ensure that financial systems and controls meet the requirements of propriety and good financial management.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the finance director has already resigned, but of course financial accountability is a corporate responsibility of the trust board. Scottish Office officials have met the trust board, both executive and non-executive directors, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the trust board is very concerned about the financial position which has arisen.
The strength of the trust's recovery plan will be indicative of the extent to which the trust board has addressed the position effectively.
I assure the House that the Scottish Office, the Highland health board and the Highland communities NHS trust are working hard to ensure that the trust can return to a sound financial base, and that it can do so without any detriment to patient care.
I am aware of the points made by the hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) about the county hospital in Invergordon, and the Royal Northern infirmary.

Sir Russell Johnston: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall just deal with this point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the proposal to close a ward at the county hospital in Invergordon, my information is that the hospital is under-occupied. I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that there will he no loss of services to patients, but there might be a need to transfer patients from one ward to another in the same hospital. The same applies to the Royal Northern infirmary.

Sir Russell Johnston: It seems from what the Minister has been saying that he concedes that there has been a major financial bug-up, but is unwilling to allocate any responsibility for it at all in a plethora of words.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The facts speak for themselves. Obviously, matters got into a state of disorder. I specified very clearly at the outset of my remarks that the extent of that disorder is that the trust's costs are currently higher than its income by 2.85 per cent. Relative to its total income, that is not an insurmountable problem, but it needs to be addressed urgently by all those concerned. We are doing that. As I mentioned, an extra £500,000 will enable a substantial step in the direction which is required. We are giving further guidance, and will continue to do so.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye asked about the position of the chairman and the chief executive of the trust. The trust board corporately, and the chairman specifically, are accountable to the Secretary of State for Scotland for delivering patient services and meeting the financial targets. The trust board is taking the situation seriously.
I should go on to make it clear that there is no question—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Ewing: The Minister has said repeatedly that he is going to monitor the situation following the announcement that additional funding will be provided by the Highland health board, which also of course applies to the Grampian area. When he speaks about monitoring, how will he relay to hon. Members who represent those areas and to the public exactly what is happening?
There is a genuine concern that that money was earmarked for future developments in other trusts. We want to know what will happen to those other proposals. How will the situation be monitored, and how will we he able to tell our people at home exactly what is happening?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady will be well aware that the NHS trusts have been very successful in bringing in innovative measures throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. For example, I was in Glasgow the other day, where 7,000 patients have been treated through day surgery. That is a wholly new concept, and I mention it as one example.
Of course, the trust cannot get on as quickly with its developmental plans if funding has not been applied with the strict rigours that it should have been. The recovery plan must he put in place with all possible speed. An extra £500,000 has been allocated for this purpose. We believe


that it will be forthcoming. I have also mentioned that there may be the possibility of further funding, but the trust must get that recovery plan properly in place in a way which will safeguard the interests of patient care and all those concerned.
There is no question of the NHS being underfunded, nor is there any so-called cash crisis. Such suggestions are nonsense. Gross expenditure on the NHS is Scotland in 1995–96 is planned at £4.3 billion. That is an increase of some £190 million, or 4.6 per cent., over 1994–95, and an increase in real terms of 1.5 per cent. after taking account of movements in pay and prices.
There are 47 trusts in Scotland, and in the past financial year they not only met but frequently exceeded their targets in delivering an increased amount and quality of health care. That includes meeting their financial targets and staying within their operating budgets. We are only halfway through the current financial year, but I assure the House that the vast majority of trusts are in a healthy financial state, and are delivering an increasing standard of health care for the people of Scotland.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: That was apparently true of the trust in question until July; it was only in August that the balloon went up publicly. I have rarely experienced anything so complicated at a constituency level. It depends on whom one speaks to, but well-placed sources—accountants and other finance people—have widely differing views about the extent of the problem, and that is the big worry. Some people say that they do not think that there is any deficit at all. That is why there is so much concern.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks tomorrow, he will see that

each one will stand the test of time. What is important is that we work out an effective recovery plan. Once that is in place, I shall of course be happy to see the hon. Gentleman and a deputation. However, the recovery plan must be in place first. The hon. Gentleman has made his views and those of his constituents clear, and they will be of assistance.
Competition between trusts serves to raise the standard of health care, and gives patients and general practitioners real choice. The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye expressed concern that trusts were turning former compatriots into competitors, but surely he is not suggesting that inefficiency and poor-quality service should be accepted. The challenge for the trust is to improve efficiency and quality for the benefit of the most important people in the health service—the patients.
The objective of our reforms is, of course, to put people first, the aim being to provide better health care, improve services to patients and give staff in the NHS greater job satisfaction. Changes have been made in the structure of the service, but the underlying principles of the NHS are the same—services are available to all, paid for out of general taxation and are and will remain free at the point of delivery. There is a great deal to recommend our reforms.
I look forward to having further discussions with the hon. Gentleman in due course. His comments will be borne in mind. We are absolutely determined to see the recovery plan effectively in place with all possible speed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.